JUDGMENT : Vineet Saran, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition to quash the work order issued in favour of the opposite party no.3-Neuron Forms Ltd. as per Request For Proposal (RPF) dated 23.04.2015 under Annexure-2. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner No.1 is a computer firm, established in the year 1997 in the name and style of “Computer Aid Private Limited” which was originally incorporated on 01.01.1997 under the Companies Act. But subsequently, the Board of Directors of Computer Aid Private Ltd. Company have decided to change the name of the computer firm from “Computer Aid” to “Red Tech Solutions”. The said Company passed necessary Resolution under Section 21 of the Companies Act for change of name and the same was approved by the Registrar of Companies, Odisha on 01.12.2013. The petitioner No.2 is the Director of the Company, who has been duly authorized by the Board of Directors to file this writ petition and pursue the remedy under the law. The opposite party no.2 issued Request For Proposal (RFP) on 23.04.2015 under Annexure-2 for revision and preparation of Electoral Roll and Electoral Photo Identity Card for the district of Balasore. Initially, such work was done through the Centralized Tender and the petitioner-Company successfully completed the work. But the opposite party no.1 subsequently decided to de-centralise the same and to issue Request For Proposal on district-wise basis. Accordingly, the petitioner-Company participated in the said Request For Proposal dated 23.04.2015 in the name and style “ Red Tech. Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.”. The bid contains two parts namely, the technical bid as well as financial bid. On opening of the technical bid, the petitioners have successfully qualified and in the price bid, when the same was opened, the petitioner no.1 is L1, which has been declared by the authorities. Being the L1, the petitioner is entitled to get the work order, but the work order was issued in favour of L2 i.e. opposite party no.3. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the tender of the petitioners, even though the lowest, was not considered by the opposite party no.2 merely on the allegation that work and conduct of the petitioners in the previous years were not good. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the tender of the petitioners, even though the lowest, was not considered by the opposite party no.2 merely on the allegation that work and conduct of the petitioners in the previous years were not good. The same cannot be a ground for refusal to award the contract in favour of the petitioners as it would be penal in nature, which action cannot be taken without issuing show cause notice to the petitioners after complying with the principle of natural justice. 4. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State submits that in the meantime, the work order having been issued in favour of opposite party no.3, it has already executed the work and as such the writ petition has become infructuous and the same should be disposed of accordingly. 5. Mr. S.R. Mulia, Learned counsel for opposite party no.3 states that on the basis of the work allotted in favour of opposite party no.3, it has executed the work. Therefore, the writ petition merits no consideration and accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and perused the record. 7. Although the prayer made in this petition for awarding contract to the petitioners no longer survives as admittedly, the work contract has been awarded in favour of the opposite party no.3 and the same has already been completed by the said opposite party, the grievance of the petitioners still remains as on perusal of Annexure-C/2 to the counter affidavit, which is the minutes of the meeting of the tender committee, it is clear that the petitioners were the lowest tenderer, but the work was not awarded to it on certain allegation that there was some complaint and adverse report against the petitioners. 8. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal, AIR 1990 SC 1402 : (1990) 2 SCC 746 , the Apex Court held that an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rule expressed in Latin maxim Audi Alteram Parten. 8. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal, AIR 1990 SC 1402 : (1990) 2 SCC 746 , the Apex Court held that an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rule expressed in Latin maxim Audi Alteram Parten. It means that the decision maker should afford to a party to a dispute an opportunity to present his case, the person concerned must be informed of the case against him and the evidence in support thereof and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. 9. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court and applying the same to the present context admittedly, neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to them before taking a decision that the contractor, even though he may be well qualified and lowest bidder, would not be awarded the contract because of his past record. This would amount to black listing the contractor without affording him any opportunity of hearing. 10. We dispose of the writ petition with the direction that in case the opposite party-authority takes a decision in future not to award the contract to the petitioners, the same shall be done only after issuing notice to the petitioners to show cause and also after giving opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.