Judgment 1. The petitioner firm has sought for a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned show cause notice of the first respondent dated 13.01.2015 in No.166/14/Va1 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to issue document and give sufficient time to submit her explanation and consider the same. 2. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader, was put on notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petitions itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The case of the petitioner is that she was called for an enquiry by the respondents for the alleged fake over draft letter submitted by her for participating in the tender. According to the petitioner, when she sought for certain documents, the same were not given by the respondents stating that it could be obtained from the other departments and if she fails to give an explanation for the show cause notice issued by the respondents, it will be construed as there is no explanation offered by her and appropriate orders would be passed. Further, she would contend that on the basis of the second respondent's recommendation, the present show cause notice came to be issued. Hence, she has come forward with their present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that first of all, it is an inter-departmental communication and it is only a show cause notice. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge by way of the present Writ Petition. She can very well offer her explanation to the show cause notice issued by the respondents. In any event, she will be given due opportunity and the relevant documents, if necessary, will be given to her. Heard both sides. 6. Admittedly, the impugned order is only a show cause notice and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that already the respondents came to the conclusion to delete the name of the petitioner firm from the registered contractors list does not arise. Further, she was called upon to give an explanation as the over draft submitted by her seems to be a fake one as per the letter of the bank dated 24.11.2014. After carefully considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the present impugned show cause notice has been issued. Further, she was called upon to give an explanation as the over draft submitted by her seems to be a fake one as per the letter of the bank dated 24.11.2014. After carefully considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the present impugned show cause notice has been issued. In the reply of the first respondent dated 30.01.2015, they have only stated to receive the documents as required by the petitioner from the other concerned departments and to reply within the given time or otherwise, it would be treated as 'no explanation'. Therefore, it cannot be construed as the respondents have come to a final conclusion and the order impugned is only a show cause notice. 7. In any event, the petitioner will be given 15 days time from today to submit her explanation to the respondents and thereafter, a personal opportunity of hearing will be given to prove that the petitioner case. In this connection, as per his earlier request, the respondents are directed to provide necessary and relevant documents to the petitioner which are available with them. After doing so, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This order should not be construed as giving any positive direction to the respondents. The respondents shall pass orders, as per the facts and circumstances of the case and also in accordance with law. 8. With the above direction, these Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.