ORDER : 1. Petitioners are Grade I, II and III contractors and are said to have been rendering services for Government departments including Public Works Department, Zilla Panchyat, Minor Irrigation, etc. During the year 201112 tenders came to be invited by the Public Works Department (for short ‘PWD’) for formation of roads and reconstruction of various roads within the limits of Magadi Sub-Division, Ramanagara, which included 15 Major District Roads with a total length of 165.15 kms and 3 State Highway Roads measuring total length of 114.53 kms, in which tender process petitioners are said to have participated and on being successful they were awarded with contracts and are said to have competed the work. 2. On 01.06.2012 the then Minister for Forests is said to have submitted a representation to the then Chief Minister of Karnataka stating that one Sri. Gangadaraiah, Executive Engineer, PWD, Ramanagara and Sri.Nataraj, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Magadi Sub-Division, Ramanagara had entrusted contracts manually in respect of various roads in Magadi Sub-Division and Ramanagara in favour of contractors of their choice without calling for etender as required under Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (for short KTPP Act) and thereby had caused loss to the exchequer which resulted in Principal Secretary, PWD being directed by the then Chief Minister of State of Karnataka to conduct a enquiry with respect to aforesaid allegations and to submit a report to the Government. Accordingly, third respondent constituted an Enquiry Committee on 31.08.2012-Annexure-P, who submitted a report on 27/28.03.2013- Annexure-A. Said report came to be forwarded by the third respondent to second respondent on 01.04.2013 vide Annexure-Q. Based on said enquiry report, second respondent has directed third respondent to withhold payments to be made to petitioners and other contractors until further orders are issued by the Government. 3. Between 17.04.2013 to 24.09.2013-Annexures-R1 to R16 notices came to be issued to petitioners calling upon them to be present at the spot for conducting spot inspection. During this interregnum period i.e., on 16.05.2013 vide Annexure-D second respondent had directed third respondent to forfeit the earnest money deposit and also fixed security deposit amount, which had been paid/deposited by the petitioners. Between 17.04.2013 to 24.09.2013-Annexures-R1 to R16 notices came to be issued to petitioners calling upon them to be present at the spot for conducting spot inspection. During this interregnum period i.e., on 16.05.2013 vide Annexure-D second respondent had directed third respondent to forfeit the earnest money deposit and also fixed security deposit amount, which had been paid/deposited by the petitioners. On 24.06.2013-Annexure-B a report came to be submitted to third respondent by fifth respondent quantifying the amounts to be recovered from each of the contractors, which was based on enquiry report dated 27/28.03.2013-Annexure-A. Third respondent on 25.06.2013 forwarded said recovery report to second respondent as per Annexure-S. By which time the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Fixed Security Deposit (FSD) amounts paid by contractors in respect of civil work carried out by them had already been forfeited. In fact fifth respondent has intimated/directed all the divisions of PWD not to process any bills due to be paid to the petitioners by communications dated 03.04.2013, 16.05.2013 & 11.07.2014-Annexures-C, D & E respectively. Hence, petitioners have submitted representations on 06.06.2013, 24.06.2013 and 22.03.2014-Annexures-F to L9 questioning the unilateral decision of forfeiting deposit amounts and also for payment of amounts due to them. On account of non payment of said amounts and non consideration of said representations, petitioners are before this Court for a writ of mandamus being issued to respondents to consider the same. 4. In W.P.No.44561565/2014 petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the Enquiry Report bearing No. Sam. SEguBhaVru:Taneke:Raha sya:: 201213/817 dated 27/28.03.2013 prepared and submitted by Respondent No.4 (vide ANNEXURE‘A’) (ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the Recovery Report bearing No. Sam. Sebc: AE3: Vasulathi Thanda: 201314 dated 24.06.2013 prepared and submitted by Respondent No.5 (Vide ANNEXURE‘B’) (iii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash communications bearing No. Aa. Sa. Patra Sankya: LohE 68 IFA: 2013 dtd. Sebc: AE3: Vasulathi Thanda: 201314 dated 24.06.2013 prepared and submitted by Respondent No.5 (Vide ANNEXURE‘B’) (iii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash communications bearing No. Aa. Sa. Patra Sankya: LohE 68 IFA: 2013 dtd. 3.04.2013 (Vide ANNEXURE‘C’) and; bearing No.Kalm/LoBamOJaSaE/RaV/AVy Vahara/LekkaShikke/201415/ bearing No.11.07.2014 (Vide ANNEXURE‘E’) forfeiting the EMD/FSD deposit amounts belonging to the Petitioners; (iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the representation dated 06.06.2013, 24.06.2013 and 22.03.2014 made by the Petitioners (vide ANNEXURES ‘F to L9’); (v) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to withhold any amount due to the Petitioners and consequently process the bills so submitted by the Petitioners; In W.P.No.24480/2015 petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus that the inordinate delay in payment of pending bills without any official communication of forfeiture is tantamount to action of forfeiture being taken based only on internal recommendation arrived at without following principles of natural justice and without notifying the Petitioner and is hence improper and unconstitutional. (ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the Recovery report bearing No. Sam Sebc:AE3: Vasulathi Thanda: 201314 dated 24/6/2013 prepared and submitted by Respondent No.5 (vide Annexure-B1) (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the communications bearing No. Aa Sa Patra Sankya: Loh E 68 IFA 2013 dated 16/5/2013 (vide annexure-H1) and bearing No. Kalm/LoBamOJaSaE/Rav/AVyVa hara/LekkaShikke/201415 dated 11/7/2014, (vide Annexure-J) and No.Sankya CBS: Ha Ba Pa; Ethare: GKha; Ramanagara; 2012/2013 dated 13/8/2014 (vide Annexure-K) (iv) Issue a writ of the nature of mandamus directing the immediate payment of pending bills, forfeited amounts and deposited amount by the Respondents to the Petitioner. Or in the alternate (iv)(a) Issue a writ of the nature of mandamus directing the immediate payment by the Respondent to the Petitioner, of only the pending bills, minus the specifically forfeited amounts and the earnest deposit amount. (v) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to withhold any amount due to the Petitioners and consequently process the bills so submitted by the Petitioners. (vi) Order payment of interest at any rate that this Hon’ble Court might deem fit on the delayed pending bills. 5. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents State. Perused the records. 6. (vi) Order payment of interest at any rate that this Hon’ble Court might deem fit on the delayed pending bills. 5. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents State. Perused the records. 6. It is the contention of Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners that at the time of conducting enquiry and submission of report no notices were issued to the petitioners and enquiry conducted is in violation of principles of natural justice and one sided. He would also submit that petitioners had completed the works satisfactorily entrusted to them pursuant to work orders issued and accordingly bills were processed and work certificate issued by the Quality Control Department would clearly disclose the satisfactory completion of work and impugned report is contrary to the same. He would also contend that when no notice of spot inspection had been issued to petitioners, said inspection conducted by respondents and reports prepared based on such inspection will have to be necessarily held as one sided and as such all consequential acts being in violation of principles of natural justice, it is liable to be quashed. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that enquiry report submitted by respondent No.3 is based on assumptions and presumptions and without any supporting material and as such it is not sustainable in law. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the fact that on notices being issued to petitioners to appear for spot inspection by notices dated 17.04.2013 and other notices where-under they had called upon petitioners and similarly placed contractors to appear on 24.03.2013 is farce, since by that time a complaint had already been lodged by the Government i.e., on 18.04.2013 resulting in FIR being registered in Cr.No.5/2013 against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 IPC etc., and as such petitioners were running pillar to post seeking redressal of their grievance and were also seeking for grant of anticipatory bail/regular bail and as such by no stretch of imagination they could have appeared on 20.04.2013 for spot inspection. Hence, any inspection conducted in the absence of petitioners or their representatives would be in violation of principals of natural justice. Hence, any inspection conducted in the absence of petitioners or their representatives would be in violation of principals of natural justice. In that view of the matter, enquiry held by conducting spot inspection in the absence of petitioners is flawed. Hence, he prays for setting aside the said enquiry reports and consequential orders passed forfeiting the deposits/security amounts with a further direction to respondents to release said amounts in favour of petitioners, which has been withheld. He would also submit that payments have not only been withheld in respect of works pertaining to Magadi Sub-Division, Ramanagara, which is the subject matter of enquiry report, but also payments of works executed by petitioners at Nelamangala, Doddaballapura and Kanakapura either by forfeiting or withholding the same, which was not called for and not being justified. In support of his submission he has relied upon the following judgments: (i) (1980) 4 SCC 379 : S.K.KAPOOR vs. JAGMOHAN AND OTHERS (ii) (2014) 14 SCC 731 : KULJA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN TELECOM PROJECT BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS (iii) (2004) 3 SCC 553 : ABL INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS 7. Sri. Prabhuling Navadig, learned Senior counsel appearing along with Sri. Viju B and Smt. Mamatha Shetty for petitioners in W.P.No.24480/2015 would support the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli and he would also contend that charge sheet filed against petitioners have been quashed by this Court and operation of enquiry report based upon which payments have been withheld have also been stayed by this Court and as such respondents are not justified in withholding payments due and payable to the petitioners. They would also contend that unilateral decision of third respondent withholding amounts payable to petitioners by forwarding communication to third respondent is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and respondents being instrumentality of State are required to act in fair and just manner and in the instant case, such fairness having not been exhibited and unilateral decision to withhold payments have been taken and as such this Court in exercise of power vested under Article 226 of Constitution of India is required to set right the illegality perpetrated by them on petitioners and prays for allowing the writ petition. In support of their submission they have relied upon following judgments: (i) (1989) 1 SCC 229: RAGHUNATH THAKU vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (ii) AIR 2003 DELHI 146: M/S. SARASWATI DYNAMICS PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA 8. Per contra, Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents State would support the action initiated by respondents and contends that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice and before conducting spot inspection notices came to be issued to petitioners as per Annexures-R3 to R7 and they had failed to appear on the dates fixed for spot inspection i.e., 20.04.2013 and 27.04.2013, 29.04.2013 and also on 07.05.2013 and 10.05.2013 and as such the allegation now made by the petitioners is without any merit same is liable to be rejected. He would submit that fact finding committee has given a report after having found that work done by the petitioners is lacking fairness and petitioners not adhered to prescribed norms in carrying out civil works and the works carried out by the petitioners are of sub standard in nature and not meeting the specification prescribed by the department. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that enquiry committee had found that payments have been made twice to the contractors and excess payment for sub standard and inferior quality of work and inferior quality of material was also used for the alleged works and as such, committee after taking note of all these reports had opined to initiate recovery of `5,607.12 lakhs from petitioners and other similarly placed contractors. He would also submit that on the basis of second report that was obtained on 01.07.2013 appropriate Government has taken note of the actual works, which had resulted in sub standard work being carried out by the petitioners and other contractors and as such officials involved in the said work had already been suspended and departmental enquiry had been initiated against those officials responsible for the same. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the registration of FIR by Lokayuktha Police and prays for rejection of writ petitions. 9. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the registration of FIR by Lokayuktha Police and prays for rejection of writ petitions. 9. He would also submit that prayer of petitioners to hold a fresh enquiry at this length of time would not be possible particularly at lapse of 5 years and technically also it would not be feasible and possible since thickness of various layers of road work that is said to have been carried out by petitioners would not tally with the present existing road condition on account of wear and tear including traffic and climatic conditions. He would also submit that interference of courts in contractual matters is not called for as it would involve ascertaining factual position and petitioners grievance, if any, to the reports will have to be adhered before a civil Court. In support of his submission he has relied upon the following judgments: (i) (2015) 9 SCC 433 : STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS vs. M.K.JOSE (ii) Unreported judgment dated 05.02.2014 rendered in W.P.No.748/2014 (LBRES) and in the light of said contentions he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that respondent authorities have issued the impugned communication dated 03.04.2013 Annexure-C, 16.05.2013-Annexure-D and 11.07.2014-Annexure-E in W.P.Nos.44561565/2014 and communication dated 03.04.2013-Annexure-H, 16.05.2013-Annexure-H1, 11.07.2014-Annexure-J and 13.08.2014-Annexure-K in W.P.No.24480/2015 to petitioners for forfeiting the deposits and also withholding payments of the bills submitted by petitioners, which is based on enquiry report dated 27/28.03.2013-Annexuer-A prepared and submitted by fourth respondent (in W.P.Nos.44561565/2014) and also report dated 24.06.2013 and 18.04.2013 respectively prepared and submitted by fifth respondent Annexure-B (in both the writ petitions). 11. It would also emerge from the records that starting point for said enquiry being initiated was based on the communication by the then Minister for Forests dated 01.06.2012 (Annexure-N in W.P.Nos.44561565/2014) where-under it was alleged that contract for various roads in Magadi Sub-Division, Ramanagara was awarded in favour of contractors without calling for tenders and same being in violation of KTPP Act resulting in loss to the exchequer, the then Chief Minister by order dated 31.08.2012 (Annexure-P in W.P.Nos.44561565/2014) directed the Chief Engineer second respondent to enquire into the said complaint, which resulted in Chief Engineer constituting a enquiry committee. Enquiry committee so constituted submitted a report on 27/28.03.2013 vide Annexure-A. A bare perusal of said enquiry report would disclose that it was an internal enquiry conducted by the department with regard to works entrusted to the petitioners and similarly placed contractors in the Magadi Sub-Division, Ramanagara. The sum and substance of conclusion arrived at by the said committee was to the following effect: (a) Non administration; (b) Misappropriate of government funds; (c) Illegalities and irregularities in calling for tender; (d) Substandard quality in formation of roads; (e) Reconstruction of various roads; 12. Based on said preliminary enquiry report dated 27/28.03.2013-Annexure-A appropriate Government constituted a fact finding enquiry committee to go into the preliminary report to enquire into under what heads payments are being made; whether the payments are made without executing the work; whether payments have been made by producing forged or false bills. On such committee being constituted, notices came to be issued to petitioners on 17.04.2013, 24.04.2013 25.04.2013, 27.04.2013, 02.05.2013 and 24.09.2013 to appear for enquiry and for spot inspection to be conducted on 20.04.2013, 29.04.2013, 30.04.2013. Petitioners undisputedly did not appear before said committee of enquiry or for spot inspection. Reasons assigned by petitioners was that even before petitioners could appear before the said committee of enquiry or for spot inspection, a complaint had already been lodged by appropriate Government, which had resulted in registration of FIR in Cr.No.5/2013 on 18.04.2013 against petitioners and as such they were apprehending coercive steps being taken by the jurisdictional police and petitioners were taking steps to obtain anticipatory bail/regular bail apprehending their arrest and as such they could not appear for enquiry or for spot inspection. Said contention merits acceptance partially, inasmuch as, petitioners could not have been expected to appear before the enquiry committee on 20.04.2013, particularly when FIR was already registered against petitioners by the jurisdictional police on 18.04.2013 itself. When this was the factual background, respondent authorities including the committee without waiting for reply being tendered by the petitioners yet again issued notices to the petitioners on 25.04.2013AnnexureR9 to appear before the enquiry committee and had called upon them to submit reply between 29.04.2013 & 30.04.2013. Even said notice was not replied by petitioners nor they appeared before enquiry committee or submitted any written reply to said notices. Even said notice was not replied by petitioners nor they appeared before enquiry committee or submitted any written reply to said notices. Though in their representations Annexure-F series they have pointed out lapses in enquiry and defects contained in the report and have been requesting to conduct re-inspection in their presence regarding the improvement and asphalting of roads and are seeking review of the recovery proceedings, same has not been done. Likewise, a representation was also submitted by the petitioners on 06.06.2013 to first respondent requesting for re-inspection in their presence, contending that if such re-inspection is done, they would be able to demonstrate the lacuna in the preliminary enquiry report. This exercise could have been done by first respondent and for reasons best known such an exercise was not undertaken. However, the fact finding committee placed reliance on preliminary enquiry report and on the basis of same has submitted the report dated 24.06.2013AnnexureB and it has been opined that work carried out by the petitioners were: (i) Lacking standards fixed by the department; (ii) Specification was not adhered to by the petitioners; (iii) Samples collected by the committee at the spot when tested by the quality control it was found to be substandard and they did not meet the specifications prescribed by the department. That apart, said Committee also found that there were shortcomings and lapses in the execution of each work based on the measurement obtained during investigation; double payments had been made; payments having been made for the work not executed, as also excess payment; substandard and inferior quality of material used in the work. As such Committee taking note of these aspects reported to the Government to initiate proceedings against petitioners and other similarly placed contractors for recovery of amounts due to the tune of `5,067.12 lakhs. As such petitioners have sought for quashing of the enquiry reports and consequential communications issued for recovering the amounts and for a direction to the respondents to process the bills submitted by them and for quashing of the communications where-under security deposits and fixed security deposits of petitioners have been forfeited as already noticed hereinabove. 13. As such petitioners have sought for quashing of the enquiry reports and consequential communications issued for recovering the amounts and for a direction to the respondents to process the bills submitted by them and for quashing of the communications where-under security deposits and fixed security deposits of petitioners have been forfeited as already noticed hereinabove. 13. Perusal of the records would also disclose that during the year 20112012 several civil works totaling to 396 tender works concerning roads, culverts and bridges were entrusted to petitioners and similarly placed contractors and same has also been certified by Departmental Engineers as per Annexures-A to A3 (in W.P.No.24480/2015). A communication has been forwarded by the then Ministry for Forest on 01.06.2012 alleging certain irregularities having crept in the award of contract and as already noticed herein above, it has resulted in the then Chief Minister ordering for enquiry, pursuant to which, Principal Secretary first respondent constituted an in-house enquiry and preliminary enquiry report dated 28.03.2013 was obtained. Before proceeding against petitioners, appropriate Government constituted another Fact Finding Enquiry Committee to go into the preliminary report and as such, Fact Finding Enquiry Committee constituted by the appropriate Government, before fixing responsibilities or the short falls if any, had issued notices to petitioners and similarly placed contractors. In fact, petitioners, have submitted their representations/objections as per Annexure-F7 to F11 (in W.P.Nos.44561565/2014) to second respondent in respect of preliminary enquiry report itself. Said authority being instrumentality of State and being a party to the contract, without attempting to fix the lapses that had allegedly occurred on such of those persons responsible for it has proceeded to indict petitioners as persons responsible for the same. Second respondent being party to the contract, is expected to maintain a fair play or to put it differently, State is expected to act in a fair and just manner. In order to repudiate the contract, the least that is expected of the State is to call upon the contracting party to reply to the allegations based on which contract is being repudiated. In other words, principles of natural justice was required to be adhered to at all levels, that too, when penal as well as civil consequences would flow from such acts of the State. A fair opportunity was required to be extended to the party against whom action was proposed, which would visit them with civil consequences. In other words, principles of natural justice was required to be adhered to at all levels, that too, when penal as well as civil consequences would flow from such acts of the State. A fair opportunity was required to be extended to the party against whom action was proposed, which would visit them with civil consequences. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.L. KAPOOR VS. JAGMOHAN AND OTHERS reported in (1980) 4 SCC 379 has held that even an administrative order if it involves civil consequences, then, such administrative action should comply with rules of principles of natural justice. It has been held as under: “9. In Alfred Thangarajah Durayappah v. W. J. Fernando & Ors., the Municipal Council of Jaffna was dissolved and superseded by the Governor General on the ground that it appeared to him that the Council was not competent to perform the duties imposed upon it. The Mayor sought to question the dissolution and super-session of the Council in the Supreme Court of Ceylon, on the ground that there was a failure to observe the principles of natural justice. One of the questions which arose for consideration was whether, as a matter of interpretation, natural justice was not excluded from action under Sec. 277 of the Municipal Ordinance under which provision the dissolution and super-session had been made. The argument was that words such as “where it appears to.......” or “if it appears to the satisfaction of .......” or “if the.........considers it expedient that.............” or “if the.........is satisfied that.........” stood by themselves without other words or circumstances or qualifications, a duty to act judicially was excluded, and so, was natural justice. The argument was accepted by the Supreme Court of Ceylon but the Privy Council disagreed with the approach. They observed that there were three matters which should always be borne in mind when considering whether the principle audi alteram partem should be applied or not. The three matters were: “first, what is the nature of the property, the office held, status enjoyed or services to be performed by the complainant of injustice. Secondly, in what circumstances or upon what occasions is the person claiming to be entitled to exercise the measure of control entitled to intervene. Thirdly, when a right to intervene is proved, what sanctions in fact is the latter entitled to impose upon the other. Secondly, in what circumstances or upon what occasions is the person claiming to be entitled to exercise the measure of control entitled to intervene. Thirdly, when a right to intervene is proved, what sanctions in fact is the latter entitled to impose upon the other. It is only upon a consideration of all these matters that the question of the application of the principle can properly be determined”. The Privy Council then proceeded to examine the facts of the case upon those considerations and said: As to the first matter it cannot be doubted that the Council of Jaffna was by statute a public corporation entrusted like all other municipal councils with the administration of a large area and the discharge of important duties. No one would consider that its activities should be lightly interfered with............ The legislature has enacted a statute setting up municipal authorities with a considerable measure of independence from the central government within defined local areas and fields of government. No Minister should have the right to dissolve such an authority without allowing it the right to be heard upon that matter unless the statute is so clear that it is plain it has no right of self defence. Upon the second matter it is clear that the Minister can dissolve the council on one of the three grounds : that it (a) is not competent to perform any duty or duties imposed upon it (for brevity their Lordships will refer to this head as in competency); or (b) persistently makes default in the performance of any duty or duties imposed upon it; or (c) persistently refuses or neglects to comply with any provision of law.....It seems clear to their Lordships that it is a most serious charge to allege that the council, entrusted with these very important duties, persistently makes default in the performance of any duty or duties imposed upon it. No authority is required to support the view that in such circumstances it is plain and obvious that the principle audi alteram partem must apply. Equally it is clear that if a council is alleged persistently to refuse or neglect to comply with a provision of law it must be entitled (as a matter of the most elementary justice) to be heard in its defence. Again this proposition requires no authority to support it. Equally it is clear that if a council is alleged persistently to refuse or neglect to comply with a provision of law it must be entitled (as a matter of the most elementary justice) to be heard in its defence. Again this proposition requires no authority to support it. If, therefore, it is clear that in two of the three cases, the Minister must act judicially, then it seems to their Lordships, looking at the section as a whole, that it is not possible to single out for different treatment the third case, namely, incompetence...... The third matter can be dealt with quite shortly. The sanction which the Minister can impose and indeed, if he is satisfied of the necessary premise, must impose upon the erring council is as complete as could be imagined; it involves the dissolution of the council and therefore the confiscation of all its properties. It was at one moment faintly argued that the council was a trustee and that it was not therefore being deprived of any of its property but this argument (soon abandoned) depended upon a complete misconception of the law of corporations.....For the purposes of the application of the principle it seems to their Lordships that this must apply equally to a statutory body having statutory powers, authorities and duties just as it does to an individual. Accordingly on this ground too the Minister should have observed the principle. For these reasons their Lordships have no doubt that in the circumstances of this case the Minister should have observed the principle audi alteram partem: Sugathadasa v. Jayasinghe was wrongly decided”. Narrow as were the considerations applied by the Privy Council to determine whether the principle audi alteram partem applied or not, Alfred Thangarajah, Durayappah v. W. J. Fernando & Ors. (Supra) appears to us furnish a complete answer to the submission of the learned Attorney General that, as a matter of interpretation, Sec. 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act did not contemplate and did not require that an opportunity should be given to the Committee before an order of super-session was passed. We may notice here that the language of Sec. 238(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act is very nearly the same as the language of Sec. 277(1) of the Municipal Ordinance which was interpreted by the Privy Council in Alfred Thangarajah Durayappah v. W. J. Fernando & Ors. (Supra). We may notice here that the language of Sec. 238(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act is very nearly the same as the language of Sec. 277(1) of the Municipal Ordinance which was interpreted by the Privy Council in Alfred Thangarajah Durayappah v. W. J. Fernando & Ors. (Supra). We have already referred to some of the relevant provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act to indicate some of the rights and duties of the Committee under that Act. A Committee so soon as it is constituted, at once, assumes a certain office and status, is endowed with certain rights and burdened with certain responsibilities, all of a nature commanding respectful regard from the public. To be stripped of the office and status, to be deprived of the rights, to be removed from the responsibilities, in an unceremonious way as to suffer in public esteem, is certainly to visit the Committee with civil consequences. In our opinion the status and office and the rights and responsibilities to which we have referred and the expectation of the Committee to serve its full term of office would certainly create sufficient interest in the Municipal Committee and their loss, if superseded, would entail civil consequences so as to justify an insistence upon the observance of the principles of natural justice before an order of super-session is passed.” 14. No doubt Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Government Advocate is fully justified in his contention that principles of Audi alteram partem was observed, since petitioners also do not dispute the issuance of notices to them between 17.04.2013 to 24.06.2013 by the respondents. However, it would be apt and appropriate to note at this juncture itself that principles of natural justice which was required to be extended to petitioners was not extended to its logical end. In other words, having issued notices to petitioners, respondent No.3 was required to conduct spot inspection in the presence of petitioners, particularly when the report of spot inspection was sought to be used against them. In other words, having issued notices to petitioners, respondent No.3 was required to conduct spot inspection in the presence of petitioners, particularly when the report of spot inspection was sought to be used against them. Yet another reason to find fault with the act of the respondents, is that having issued notices to the petitioners to appear before enquiry, same was partially followed up by respondents by initiating criminal prosecution (legality of which is not discussed in this order) by filing a complaint before the office of Lokayukta Police, Ramanagar, which had resulted in FIR being registered against petitioners in Crime No.5/2013 on 18.04.2013. As such, petitioners could not have been expected to have appeared for enquiry on 20.04.2013 or for spot inspection or disclose their defence in the enquiry being held against them, as it would have prejudiced their rights in the criminal prosecution. It is in this background, petitioners did not appear and contest the allegation made by respondents against them. However, it could not have prevented the petitioners to depute their official or their representative to be present at the spot while inspection was being conducted. It is in this background, Committee which was constituted by the appropriate Government to find out the factual position, has given a report on 24.06.2013 based on principal enquiry report, which resulted in repudiation of the contract, forfeiture of the amounts payable to petitioners and ordering for recovery of amounts from the petitioners. 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ABL INTERNATIONAL LTD., AND ANOTHER VS. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 has held that where instrumentality of the State is a party to a contract, will have to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and said authority has an obligation to act in accordance with it. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “23. It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State or an instrumentality of State is a party to the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “23. It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State or an instrumentality of State is a party to the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants the first respondent as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the above said requirement of Article 14, then we have no hesitation in holding that a writ court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first respondent. In this context, we may note that though the first respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act, it is wholly owned by the Government of India. The total subscribed share capital of this company is 2,50,000 shares out of which 2,49,998 shares are held by the President of India while one each share is held by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of Commerce and Industry respectively. The objects enumerated in the Memorandum of Association of the first respondent at Para 10 states : “To undertake such functions as may be entrusted to it by Government from time to time, including grant of credits and guarantees in foreign currency for the purpose of facilitating the import of raw materials and semi-finished goods for manufacture or processing goods for export.” Para 11 of the said object reads thus : “To act as agent of the Government, or with the sanction of the Government on its own account, to give the guarantees, undertake such responsibilities and discharge such functions as are considered by the Government as necessary in national interest.” 16. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in the matters of contractual obligations which requires reciprocal functions to be discharged by the parties would not be in the realm or scope of Article 226 of Constitution of India for scrutiny. In the matter of STATE OF KERALA V/S M.K. JOSE reported in (2015) 9 SCC 433 Hon’ble Apex Court while examining the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in contractual disputes has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used for conducting enquiry about facts through Commission. In the matter of STATE OF KERALA V/S M.K. JOSE reported in (2015) 9 SCC 433 Hon’ble Apex Court while examining the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in contractual disputes has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used for conducting enquiry about facts through Commission. It is also held that writ is not appropriate proceedings for adjudication of dispute relating to contractual obligation. 17. Keeping these sound principles enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in its authoritative pronouncements referred to hereinabove in mind, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly disclose that on one hand respondent State has relied upon the fact finding preliminary report dated 27/28.03.2013, which culminated in a fact finding committee report dated 24.06.2013, not only to terminate or repudiate the contract entrusted to the petitioners but also resulting in notices being issued to them for recovery of amounts and also forfeiting all such amounts due and payable to them including security deposits. In other words, civil consequences have flown from such act of the State. Thus, fair play which is expected of a State though complied partially, has resulted in one sided order being passed for recovery and forfeiture based on the said enquiry report in which petitioners have not actively participated and thereby there is infraction in the principles of natural justice. 18. Though Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners has made a valiant effort and has strenuously contended that enquiry reports are to be quashed, this Court is not inclined to accept said contention and it would be apt and appropriate to permit the petitioners to pursue their grievance from the stage of filing objections to the preliminary enquiry report by also granting additional liberty to file objections to the fact finding enquiry committee report dated 24.06.2013. In other words, without disturbing the reports dated 27/28.03.2013 and 24.06.2013 or the consequential orders passed forfeiting and ordering for recovery of amounts due from the petitioners, it would suffice to direct the respondent authorities to reexamine the matter afresh, not only by considering the representations, which are already on record but also by considering the objections if any, that may be filed by the petitioners to the said reports. 19. 19. This Court is of the considered view that petitioners should be permitted to file additional objections and place all such material on record before respondent authorities to establish as to how enquiry reports are flawed and also to redress their grievance before respondents1 and 2. Said authorities would be at liberty to examine the defence of the petitioners without being influenced by its earlier observations. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : (i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed in part. (ii) Respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider the representations Annexures Fseries in W.P.Nos.44561565/2014 and Annexure-L series in W.P.No.24480/2015 submitted by petitioners without being influenced by its earlier communications or findings and record fresh findings, if necessary. (iii) Petitioners are also at liberty to file or submit additional representations to respondents1 and 2 expeditiously, at any rate, within four weeks from today along with additional documents if any, in support of their defence and they would also be at liberty to seek summoning of such document/s from the authorities relating to works in question. (iv) Respondents authorities shall consider said representations and thereafter pass suitable orders thereon and till such orders are passed, no further coercive steps to recover the alleged amounts due shall be taken. (v) In the event of respondents arriving at a conclusion that recoveries are to be made from petitioners or similarly placed persons, they would be at liberty to either revive the impugned communications or issue fresh orders and/or raise demands based on fresh findings, if any, that may be recorded. (vi) It is needless to state that in the event of conclusion being arrived by the respondents that no amount/s are due and recoverable from petitioners, respondent authorities shall take steps to disburse the amounts due if any to the petitioners expeditiously and in accordance with law. (vii) Respondent authorities shall take expeditious steps to conclude the enquiry subject to petitioners also cooperating. (viii) All contentions of both parties on merits are kept open.