JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri A. Sachikumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri K. Jagat, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the order dated 02-05-2013 issued by the Commissioner (GAD), Government of Manipur. 3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner is the proprietor of the firm M/s. Monalisa which is a firm approved by the Government of Manipur for supply of Steel Furniture vide letter dated 10-01-2002 issued by the Under Secretary (GAD), Government of Manipur. Being an approved firm, the petitioner's firm used to supply store items namely steel furniture and while doing so, the petitioner's firm started supplying other items on the basis of specific orders given by the Under Secretary (GAD), Government of Manipur. 4. The Under Secretary (GAD), Government of Manipur issued a memorandum dated 25-05-2012 by which the petitioner's firm was blacklisted from the supply of Steel Sofa sets, Water Geysers, etc. to Government Offices. Being aggrieved by the said memorandum, petitioner's firm submitted a representation dated 27-08-2012 praying for cancellation of the said memorandum. The Under Secretary (GAD), Government of Manipur issued another memorandum dated 07-11-2012 allowing the petitioner's firm to continue supply of those store items approved by the Government which was withdrawn by the impugned order dated 02-05-2013 issued by the Commissioner (GAD), Government of Manipur. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02-05-2013, the petitioner's firm submitted a representation dated 15-06-2013 praying for cancellation of the said order dated 02-05-2013. While the said representation was pending for disposal, the Under Secretary (GAD), Government of Manipur issued a quotation dated 04-06-2013 inviting rate quotations from the registered and reputed firms for supply of various items including steel furniture. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 02-05-2012 is bad in law on the grounds that the same has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and without assigning any reason thereof. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 02-05-2012 is bad in law on the grounds that the same has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and without assigning any reason thereof. On the other hand, relying upon their affidavit-in-opposition, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner's firm had been blacklisted not because of the fact that it had supplied items which are not approved by the State Government but for the supply of items contrary to the specific orders made by the State Government. It is further submitted that the petitioner's firm was blacklisted pursuant to a decision taken by the State Government on the basis of the Enquiry Report submitted by the Vigilance Commission. 6. Undoubtedly two specific grounds have been taken in the writ petition-one, principles of natural justice have been violated and two, no reason has been assigned amounting to denial of justice. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 02-05-2013, it is crystal clear that no reason has been assigned while issuing the impugned order. Moreover, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, there is no rebuttal to the allegation made by the petitioner that no notice was given to the petitioner's firm before the impugned order was issued by the Commissioner (GAD) resulting in the violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, the impugned order dated 02-05-2013 can normally be set aside and quashed only on the said two grounds. 7. But there is one aspect of the matter, arisen out of the facts and circumstances of the present case, which can not be ignored while deciding the issues involved herein. Even prior to the filing of the present writ petition, the Under Secretary (GAD) had already issued quotation dated 04-06-2013 inviting rate quotations from the registered and reputed firms for supply of various items including items which were supplied by the petitioner's firm. It appears that the said quotation dated 04-06-2013 issued by the Under Secretary (GAD) has not been challenged by the petitioner's firm before any appropriate forum and there is a possibility of having subsequent development which would have a bearing on the subject matter in issue. It appears that the said quotation dated 04-06-2013 issued by the Under Secretary (GAD) has not been challenged by the petitioner's firm before any appropriate forum and there is a possibility of having subsequent development which would have a bearing on the subject matter in issue. No materials have been placed on record by either of the parties as regards the developments, that might have taken place pursuant to the said quotation, which could have been taken into consideration while deciding the issues involved herein. One and half years have gone by and since the Government offices could not remain un-functional for want of furniture, a new firm might have been engaged for supply of furniture pursuant to the said quotation dated 04-06-2013 or some sort of arrangement might have been made. In case a new firm has already started supplying the steel furniture after the tender process having been completed, the subject matter in issue will be rendered infructuous and there will be no point of passing any order in the present writ petition. Moreover, while the writ petition was pending for disposal, no order had been passed by this court staying the operation of the impugned order dated 02-05-2013. The normal rule is that the court shall not pass any order which is unenforceable and which will create unhealthy situation resulting in legal complicacy. In the absence of materials as aforesaid, it may not be appropriate for this court to pass an order as regards the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 02-05-2013 and that too, in the absence of a firm which might have been engaged pursuant to the said quotation. Considering the overall, this court is of the view that the end of justice will be made if the petitioner is directed to submit a represent which will be considered and disposed of by the respondents at the earliest possible. 8. With the above observation, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall submit a representation to the respondents within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and that the respondents shall consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner within a month from the date of receipt of it.