ORDER : This application has been filed for quashing the Tender Notice no. 6/12 published on 15.07.2012 in Dainik Bhaskar, whereby the tender invited for transportation of food grains in the district of Gumla for the period ending on 31.03.2013. 2. It appears that by Annexure-1 respondents issued Tender Notice No.5/2012, for transportation of food grains in the district of Gumla for the period ending on 31.03.2013. Petitioner participated in the tender and he was found lowest bidder. Accordingly, vide Annexure-2, work allotted to the petitioner and he was asked to enter into an agreement within 15 days from the date of work order and deposit of security money. It is stated in the writ application that petitioner fell ill and was admitted in the hospital. Therefore, he requested the authority (respondents) to extend the period for execution of agreement. As requested by the petitioner, the respondents vide letter no. 252 dated 12.07.2012 (Annexure-4) extended the period for execution of the agreement till 27.07.2012. But in the meantime, on 15.07.2012,the respondent issued another tender notice for the same work. Accordingly, petitioner filed this application and prayed for quashing the aforesaid tender notice, because the same had been issued without cancelling the earlier tender notice and the work order issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. It further appears that during pendency of this writ application, the respondents by Annexure-9 forfeited the earnest money of the petitioner, which was deposited along with the tender papers and prohibited the petitioner from participating in any tender issued by the respondents upto the year 2014. Accordingly, an amendment application filed by the petitioner for quashing the order as contained in Annexure-9. It is stated in the amendment application that before issuing Annexure-9, neither any notice given to the petitioner, nor petitioner was heard. 4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since during the pendency of this application , the period of tender has already been elapsed, therefore, prayer made in the main writ application has become infructuous. Thus, the petitioner is not pressing the prayer made in main writ application. However, he submitted that the amendment application has already been allowed vide order dated 11.12.2012. He further submitted that aforesaid prayer of the petitioner still survives. Therefore, the petitioner pressing this application so far it relates to Annexure-9. Mr. Thus, the petitioner is not pressing the prayer made in main writ application. However, he submitted that the amendment application has already been allowed vide order dated 11.12.2012. He further submitted that aforesaid prayer of the petitioner still survives. Therefore, the petitioner pressing this application so far it relates to Annexure-9. Mr. Gadodia further submitted that admittedly Annexure-9 has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, Mr. M.K.Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that even after extension of period for executing the agreement, petitioner had not executed the same, therefore, as per the terms and conditions of N.I.T./Work order, the earnest money deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 7. There is no dispute that earlier the work was allotted in favour of the petitioner by Annexure-2 and he was asked to execute agreement within 15 days from the date of work order and deposit of security money. It is also not in dispute that date of execution of agreement has been extended till 27.07.2012. However, it appears that after extending the period for executing the agreement, respondents published another Tender Notice vide Annexure-3 for the same work and that too without cancelling the earlier N.I.T. and work order issued in favour of the petitioner. 8. It appears that during pendency of this writ application, Annexure-9 issued and served upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the same challenged in this case by filing amendment application. In the amendment application, petitioner specifically stated that before passing Annexure-9, petitioner had not received notice and he had also not given opportunity of hearing. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavit. 9. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kulja Industries Ltd. Vs Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and Others" reported in 2014 (14) SCC 731 : 2013 (4) JLJR (SC) 331 and Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, reported in 2014 (9) SCC 105 : 2014 (4) JLJR (SC) 305, it has been held that it is mandatory for the respondents to give notice to the petitioner before passing an order of black-listing and forfeiting earnest money. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, reported in 2014 (9) SCC 105 : 2014 (4) JLJR (SC) 305, it has been held that it is mandatory for the respondents to give notice to the petitioner before passing an order of black-listing and forfeiting earnest money. As noticed above, since no notice given to the petitioner before issuing Annexure-9, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. Thus, the same can not be sustained. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order as contained in Annexure-9 is quashed. However, I give liberty to the respondents to pass reasoned order, if they so desire, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, I further observe that if respondents will not take any step for issuance of notice within 15 days from the date of production of this order by the petitioner, then it will be presumed that the respondents have decided for not taking any action against the petitioner and in that event respondents are directed to refund the earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner within one month from the date of expiry of 15 days.