JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed, inter alia, to quash the letter dated 31.12.2011 under Annexure-1, letter dated 18.01.2012 under Annexure-19 and for a direction to the opposite parties to re-cast the quantum of workload pursuant to the work order proportionately to the work given to the ESM companies. A prayer has also been made to declare Annexure-20 as illegal and for a direction to the opposite parties to release the withheld amount vide Annexure-20 and not to impose shortfall penalty as per the agreement. 02. Sans details, the short facts of the petitioner is that the General Manager, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as “ MCL”) floated e-Tender Notice for extraction of coal/coal measure strata by deploying Surface Miner, Mechanical Transfer and Transportation of the same from Surface Miner Face to different destinations at Samaleswari OCP of IB-Valley Area. The petitioner, a private limited company, submitted bid and became the lowest tenderer. Thereafter letter of intent and work order were issued to it on 17.01.2011 and 03.02.2011 respectively. The same was accepted by it on 21.06.2011. The site was handed over to it on 01.04.2011. While the matter stood thus, one M/s.G.G. Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ application before this Court, which was registered as W.P.(C) No.9754 of 2011. The petitioner-company was added as one of the opposite parties. In Misc. Case No.6025 of 2011, an order of status quo was passed. Pursuant to the direction of the Court, the ESM Companies were to be given full work load by the opposite parties and in that event, the work load for the work under the NIT was required to be decided afresh keeping in mind the capacity of the petitioner-company. While the matter stood thus, the opposite parties issued a letter on 04/06.06.2011 to impose penalty for shortfall. Thereafter, the petitioner-company filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.25540 of 2011 before this Court praying for a direction to restrain the opposite parties from recovery of shortfall penalty. The further case of the petitioner is that the Staff Officer, (M), Ib Valley Area, MCL issued a letter on 22.7.2011 to the petitioner stating therein that the daily average performance was far below the awarded daily minimum quantity. The further case of the petitioner is that the Staff Officer, (M), Ib Valley Area, MCL issued a letter on 22.7.2011 to the petitioner stating therein that the daily average performance was far below the awarded daily minimum quantity. The petitioner was advised to improve the same by deploying sufficient number of equipments as per requirement of the NIT, failing which the Management would take action. The petitioner sent a reply on 30.07.2011. It is further stated that vide letter dated 16.8.2011 the opposite parties requested the petitioner to prepare revised progress chart/schedule of work. The revised chart was submitted on 22.8.2011. On 23.8.2011, the opposite parties intimated the petitioner that the progress chart was not acceptable and requested the petitioner to come for a discussion with the Project Officer, Samaleswari OCP for finalization of progress chart. On 25.08.2011, a revised statement chart was submitted. The petitioner had sent a letter on 09.09.2011 to the opposite parties not to recover any shortfall penalty. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.25540 of 2011. The same was disposed of on 13.12.2011 with a direction to the opposite party no.3 therein to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction, the opposite parties sent a letter on 31.12.2011 stating therein that the representation dated 09.09.2011 under Annexure-16 is misconceived. Again the petitioner filed another representation on 13.1.2012 vide Annexure-18, which was rejected on 18.01.2012. After rejection of the representation, the opposite parties withheld the bills of the petitioner and took steps to impose penalty. 03. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party nos.1 to 7. The sum and substance of opposite party nos.1 to 7 is that the tender of the petitioner was accepted on 17.1.2011 and work order was issued on 3.2.2011. Since the petitioner failed to submit the proposed progress chart as per the condition laid down in the work order vide Annexur-5, a letter was issued to it on 6.6.2011 to submit the progress chart immediately, failing which, penalty will be imposed as per Clause-6 of General terms and conditions. The petitioner submitted a proposed progress chart, but challenged the letter dated 6.6.2011 in W.P.(C) No.25540 of 2011. By order dated 13.12.2011, this Court directed the opposite parties to dispose of the representation. The petitioner submitted a proposed progress chart, but challenged the letter dated 6.6.2011 in W.P.(C) No.25540 of 2011. By order dated 13.12.2011, this Court directed the opposite parties to dispose of the representation. Accordingly, the opposite party no.5 vide letter dated 31.12.2011 disposed of the representation of the petitioner stating therein that the apprehension of the petitioner is not correct. It is further stated that in Misc. Case No.6025 of 2011 arising out of W.P.(C) No.9754 of 2011, this Court, as an interim measure, directed that the status quo so far ESM company existing work load shall be maintained, but not of the petitioner. The petitioner-company has nothing to do with the transportation job, which has been done by the ESM companies. There was no dearth of work for the petitioner-company. But the reasons best known, the petitioner did not deploy the total number of surface miners, pay loaders and tippers. A statement of date wise deployment/addition of equipments has been given in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, which is given below: Statement of date wise deployment/addition of equipments by the petitioner since inception. Date No. of tippers. No. of loaders pay No. of surface miners. 4.4.2011 05 02 01 18.6.2011 15 19.7.2011 05 13.8.2011 11 26.8.2011 09 15.12.2011 13 05.2.12 07 TOTAL: 65 02 01 It is further stated that as per NIT, the requirement of equipments are as follows: “a) Surface miner capacity …..13104 Cum b) Pay Loader-07 Nos. (12 HP or its matching equivalent or higher capacity) c) Tippers-110 Nos. (14 Te. Capacity) having total capacity of 1540 Ton.” A comparative chart showing number of equipments deployed by the petitioner against the requirement as per NIT to achieve the 13104 Cum./day with regard to NIT 589 has been furnished. The same is quoted hereunder. Description of machineries. Requirement as per NIT Deployment by petitioner Shortage/ deficiency Remarks Surface miners Capacity of 13104 Cum/day Capacity of 6000 Cum/day. Capacity of 7104 Cum/day. As per letter No.114 dated 22.4.2011 of SO (P&P) Pay Loader 07 02 05 -do- Tippers 14 Te. 110 Nos. 65 45 -do- It is further stated vide Annexure-15, the petitioner had given the final and revised charted quantity. In the said final and revised charted quantity, the petitioner has stated that the extraction and transportation for the year 2011-12 was 6.15 million tones per year and not 8.8 million tones per year. 110 Nos. 65 45 -do- It is further stated vide Annexure-15, the petitioner had given the final and revised charted quantity. In the said final and revised charted quantity, the petitioner has stated that the extraction and transportation for the year 2011-12 was 6.15 million tones per year and not 8.8 million tones per year. The annual mining capacity of Samaleswari OCP was 11 million tones per year. To achieve the said target for the year 2011-12, the coal was to be extracted by M.C.L. through other contractors apart from the petitioner. The statement made by the petitioner regarding its annual extraction and transportation of coal vis-à-vis transportation done by ESM companies is false. It is further stated that since the petitioner could not deploy all the machineries, i.e., surface miners, pay loaders and tippers as per the tender for extraction and transportation of coal, there was a huge shortage in the extraction and transportation of coal. The petitioner could only extract and transport 2.15 million tones in the year 201112, whereas the charted quantity was 6.15 million tones. The opposite parties in order to cater to the needs of power sectors and steel plants with whom the agreement for supply of coal was made in a stipulated time, finding no other way, extracted and transported the shortfall of coal created by the petitioner, through its own machines, ESM companies as well other contractors. The submission of the petitioner that the ESM companies had been given a work load of 10.68 million tones of coal transportation for the year 2011-12 from Samaleswari OCP has been denied. It is stated that the work load includes the transportation of coal in the total Ib Valley Area for transportation from stock yard to siding and also from C.H.P. to siding and transportation of reject/0.B, transportation of coal from face to siding in case of conventional production done by the opposite parties and also transportation of coal from face to siding of the production done by other surface miner contractor. Further, a hindrance register is maintained on the site as per the contract executed between the petitioner and the opposite parties. As per the contract, if there will be any difficulty on the part of the petitioner to execute the work, i.e., extraction and transportation of coal it has to be mentioned in the hindrance register. Further, a hindrance register is maintained on the site as per the contract executed between the petitioner and the opposite parties. As per the contract, if there will be any difficulty on the part of the petitioner to execute the work, i.e., extraction and transportation of coal it has to be mentioned in the hindrance register. In the said register, the petitioner has stated that due to the interim order passed by this Court, it has been restrained from executing the work. The statement made in the hindrance register is totally misleading and just to avoid the imposition of penalty. 04. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner controverting the allegations made in the counter affidavit. 05. Heard Mr. A. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.M. Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party nos.1 to 7. 06. In course of hearing, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner placed much reliance on the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.9754 of 2011 filed by one M/s. G.G. Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. and Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 3371 . By order dated 22.4.2011, a Division Bench of this Court has passed the interim order to the effect that the status quo so far as existing work load of the petitioner shall be maintained till the next date. From the said order, it is vivid and luminescent that petitioner has not been restrained from carrying out its work. In the hindrance register, it is stated that due to the interim order, the petitioner could not proceed with the work. As has been stated above, the interim order was confined to the writ petition only. Thus the reliance placed on, the said order is totally misplaced. 07. In Gorkha Security Services (supra), the apex Court had occasion to deal with the case of the blacklisting. In para 34 of the report their Lordships held that the impugned order dated 11.9.2013 blacklisting the appellant without giving notice thereto, is contrary to the principles of natural justice. A bare reading of the said decision, however, shows that there is a significant difference in the factual matrix in which the said case arose for consideration. The reliance upon Gorkha Security Services (supra), therefore, is of no assistance to the petitioner. 08. A bare reading of the said decision, however, shows that there is a significant difference in the factual matrix in which the said case arose for consideration. The reliance upon Gorkha Security Services (supra), therefore, is of no assistance to the petitioner. 08. The agreement was executed for extraction of coal by deploying Surface Miner, Mechanical Transfer and Transportation of the same from Surface Miner Face to different destinations at Samaleswari OCP of IB-Valley Area. The date wise deployment of equipments by the petitioner and requirement of equipments as per NIT quoted above shows that right from beginning of the work, the equipment capacity of the petitioner is less than the requirement for which the petitioner failed to achieve the target. It is also evident from the counter affidavit that the opposite parties failed to keep its promises in supplying coal to the power sectors and steel plants. 09. In Shri Sudarsan Barik v. The Managing Director, Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar (W.P.(C) No.15701 of 2013 disposed of on 18.11.2014 by this Court), a question arose before this Court was as to whether the Corporation was justified in forfeiting the EMD of the petitioner as he failed to deposit the earnest money and royalty/lease rent for 2013 crop, in spite of calling upon him to do so vide office letters in accordance with the provisions of Clause 4(a), 4(b), 12 and 14 of the terms and conditions of sale. A Division Bench of this Court, speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Amitava Roy, the Chief Justice, held as follows:- “xxx xxx xxx 10. As it is in a process initiated by the State, its instrumentalities and any public authority contemplating participation of eligible members of the public, the professed norms and stipulations proclaimed to govern the same ought to be strictly adhered to. In other words, such an authority for the sake of fairness, transparency and objectivity in the process is to be held rigorously to such norms and stipulations lest the exercise undertaken degenerates to be unfair, clandestine, veiled and discriminatory. Inflexibility in the matter of enforcement of such norms to ensure uniformity in approach and consistency in decision is thus an inviolable imperative in every public participatory process. 11. Inflexibility in the matter of enforcement of such norms to ensure uniformity in approach and consistency in decision is thus an inviolable imperative in every public participatory process. 11. It has been held time out of number by the Hon’ble Apex Court that an essential tender condition must be strictly adhered to as reiterated in Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 247 and in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Ajoy Mehta, (2009) 3 SCC 458 . 12. This judicially evolved rule on administrative law has reverberated since the classical enunciation of Mr Justice Frankfurter in Vitarelli v. Seaton (1959) 359 US 535, and referred to with approval by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Air Port Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , wherein it was predicated that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged and that it must scrupulously observe those standards on the pain of invalidation of an act of any violation thereof. xxx xxx xxx” 10. Considering the present case on the anvil of the decisions cited supra, we are of the opinion that the petitioner could not deploy the equipments for extraction and transportation of coal and achieve the target. Numbers of letters were issued to the petitioner. In spite of the same, the petitioner could not achieve the target. There was a huge shortage in the extraction and transportation of coal. Thus, the opposite parties are justified in imposing penalty. 11. In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 12.1.2012 vide Annexure-20 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.