ORDER : 1. In both writ petitions the show cause notice dated 30.10.2018 issued by General Manager, (CMC), (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.) is under challenge therefore, the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that both the matters may be heard together and may be disposed of by a common order. 2. Upon this both the matters have been heard together which have been listed today at Serial Nos. 20 and 25 respectively. 3. The show cause notice dated 30.10.2018 is under challenge on the ground that there is jurisdictional error in issuing the orders. The show cause notice has been issued after cancellation of the tender notice and therefore, the authorities have got no jurisdiction to issue any show cause notice after cancellation of the bid, (impugned). 4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners, as per the pleading made in the writ petitions, is that the respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Limited has published an e-Tender notice being e-Tender Notice No.H-HEMM-13 dated 06.01.2018 inviting digitally signed and encrypted e-Tender primarily for the work of “Hiring of HEMM for removal of overburden, extraction and transportation of Coal with fire fighting XVA, XV XIV, XIII, XI/XII, XII, XI. XA, IX/X, X, IX, VIIIA, VIII/VII(T), VIII, VII(T) & V/VI Seams of AKJ-SIMLA Patch of Amalgamated East Bhuggatdih-Simlabahal Colliery of Bastacolla Area (1) In-situ OB: 1679.5 LCM, (2) Jhama + MP: 83.76 LCM, (3) Coal: 266.44 LMT, (4)Stripping Ratio:1:6:62.” The said notice contains a condition of submission of EMD/bids security of Rs.50,00,000/- being an essential condition for one or the other bidders for participating in the bid. 5. The tender document also contains a condition that the validity period of bid is 120 days from the final end date of submission of bid with all extensions. The petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by EMD/bid on 09.02.2018. 6. The case of the petitioner is that petitioners-company has also entered into a joint venture agreement with one M/s. S.G. Projects and M/s. Balaji Projects but due to inadvertence the bid paper has been submitted by the petitioners-company in its individual capacity as also by way of joint venture agreement, but the same has been done due to inadvertent error committed by the ministerial staff. 7. 7. The tender has been cancelled which has been intimated to the bidders by publishing it by the respondent-BCCL, but thereafter show cause notice has been issued on 30.10.2018 (impugned). 8. The ground of the petitioners to assail the aforesaid show cause notice is that once the bid has been cancelled, the respondent-BCCL will cease its jurisdiction to issue any show cause notice for forfeiting the EMD amount and to blacklist. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the last date of submission of the tender was on 09.10.2018 while under Clause 11 the validity of the bid has been fixed to be not less than 120 days from the final end date of submission of the bid, considering all extension if there, and as such the bid validity as per the tender document was a period of 120 days from the end date i.e. up to 09.06.2018. The petitioner has submitted the online application along with the EMD/bid security of Rs.50,00,000/-on 09.02.2018 and as such the authority if evident to take any decision of any of the bidders that is only during the course of period of 120 days and not later than that, but here in the instant case when the bid tender has been cancelled, the show cause notice has been issued i.e. on 30th October, 2018, the authority have got no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. 10. Per contra Mr. Indrajit Sinha appearing in W.P.(C). No.124 of 2019 and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta appearing in W.P.(C). No.6502 of 2018 have jointly submitted by refuting the ground taken by the petitioners that the writ petitions are pre-mature as only show cause notices have been issued, and as such the same may not been interfered with at this stage since the decision is still to be taken by the competent authority. They have submitted that the petitioner has already responded to the said show cause notice but instead of waiting for the final outcome, they have rushed to this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They have submitted that the petitioner has already responded to the said show cause notice but instead of waiting for the final outcome, they have rushed to this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They have further submitted that there is no question of any jurisdictional error rather the show cause notice has been issued on the basis of an allegation that on examination of the quoted price of the bidders it has been observed that Tribuvan Carrier Pvt. Ltd., “S.G.P.L., T.C.P.L. B.P (JV) had quoted exactly the same price and hence there is collusion on their part and considering this aspect of the matter the respondent B.C.C.L. was compelled to cancel the bid and therefore there is no jurisdictional error rather the allegation which has been levelled by the respondent as reflected in the impugned show cause notice needs to be examined and if it will be quashed at this stage, the proper finding by the authority would not come. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response submits that there is no allegation on the face of the show cause. The petitioner may not be compelled to wait for the outcome by the respondent which they have submitted to the said show cause notice and as such the writ petition is required to be entertained by quashing the show cause notices. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident from the material available on record that the show cause notice dated 30th October, 2018 has been questioned by the petitioners which is on the ground of jurisdictional error while on the other hand the plea has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondent B.C.C.L. that there is no jurisdictional error rather the authority when found that both the bidders have acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender resulting into cancellation of the bid therefore the show cause notices have been issued, hence the same needs to be examined by the authority and if the show cause notices, when the response has been filed by the petitioner, will be quashed at this stage the inquiry which is contemplated to be made in pursuance to this show cause notice will be stalled. 13. 13. This Court in order to adjudicate the issue thinks it proper to discuss the power of the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of quashing of the show cause notice at the threshold. There is no dispute over the fact that any allegation reflected in the show cause notice does not give cause of action since the allegation cannot be treated as an adverse order. 14. If petitioner submits his reply, after considering the reply and after holding an inquiry, the competent authority may drop the proceedings. 15. He may also decide that the allegations are not proved hence after issuance of show cause notice, it would be appropriate for the concerned to respond it, Reference in this regard is made to the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vrs. Kunisetty Satyanarayan reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 [:2017 (1) JLJR (SC) 113] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking reference of the judgment rendered in the case of Executive Engineer Bihar Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 : (1996) 1 SCC 327 , Special Director vs. Ghulam (Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 ) Ulagappa vs. Divisional Commr., Mysore reported in (2001)10 SCC 639 , State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma reported in (1987)2 SCC 179 has been pleased to hold that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show cause notice. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against mere show cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceeding and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled of law that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is well settled of law that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed that the said party can be said to have any grievance. In paragraph 15 it has been held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such a discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. It is thus evident that a writ Court should not ordinarily interfere in the show cause notice at that stage rather it will be said to be pre-mature case and allegations if levelled against one or the other in the show cause notice does not give rise to the show cause notice because it does not amount of adverse order, which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having jurisdiction to do so. 17. Therefore, merely issuance of show cause notice cannot be said to be approval of a show cause action warranting the said person to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India however, High Court can quash a show cause if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vrs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 wherein at paragraph 10 it has been held as under:- “Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa v. Commr., Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana.)” Normally a show cause notice is not to be quashed prior to the conclusion of the inquiry on the ground that the charge-sheet is quashed at the time of the conclusion of inquiry. The judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179 wherein at paragraph 9 their Lordships has been pleased to hold that, when a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at this stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature. 18. Herein, in the instant case, although the notice has not been issued under the statutory provision but the principle as has been laid down in the aforesaid judgment will equally be applicable since the petitioner has filed a response while final decision has not yet come therefore, the writ petitions will be said to be pre-mature, since the show cause notice is not without jurisdiction. 19. 19. It is thus evident by going through the aforesaid proposition of law that the show cause notice and the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the interest of the parties unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to issue it. 20. In view of the settled position of law the factual aspect as has been pleaded by the petitioners have been examined by this Court. 21. It is evident from the factual aspect involved in this case that the petitioners have participated in the bid and it is their case that due to inadvertence two bids have been submitted, namely “SGPL, TCPL BP JV” as has been pleaded in the writ petitions that the petitioners are joint venture and entered into an agreement with M/s SGPL and a New Ltd. Company in the name of “SGPL TCPL BP JV” which is admittedly contrary to the condition of tender which ultimately led to cancellation of the entire bid. It is also evident from the show cause that in view thereof the provision of Clause 6 of Integrity Pact of Tender Document for referred NIT, the authority on the ground of some allegation has issued notice, hence it would not be said that there is no jurisdiction and as such, applying the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered aforesaid, this Court is of the view that interfering with the impugned show cause notices at this stage will be nothing but stalling the entire inquiry and further the result may go in favour of the petitioners and hence the stage has not come for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Before parting with the judgment it needs to refer the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Fly Wheel Travels, Hyderabad Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hyderabad & Anr. 22. Before parting with the judgment it needs to refer the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Fly Wheel Travels, Hyderabad Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hyderabad & Anr. passed by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in WP No.25150 of 2004 decided on 21.06.2005 but the factual aspect revolving around the aforesaid cases are different to the factual aspect involved in this case because in the aforesaid case the writ petitioner was blacklisted and EMD was forfeited and the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court by taking into consideration that the tender itself was cancelled therefore blacklisting and forfeiture of EMD has been held to be illegal but it is evident from the factual aspect discussed in the aforesaid judgment that the tender was cancelled simpliciter and not on any allegation but here in the instant case as would be evident from the cancellation order dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure-5) the notice inviting tender has been cancelled on account of prima-facie case of bid rigging and collusive bidding. 23. Therefore, it cannot be said to be cancellation of bid simplicitor, hence the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 24. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Food Cooperation of India & Anr. reported in (2018) SCC Online Jhar 1220 [: 2018 (4) JLJR 533 ], the factual aspect of the aforesaid writ petition is as to whether different since in the aforesaid writ petition the tender was accepted after the expiry validity period of bid and in that situation the order has been passed that the bid accepted after the lapse of the validity period of bid be said to be wrong decision that is not the issue here, hence the said judgment is also not applicable. 25. In view thereof, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and appreciating the ration of Hon’ble Apex Court as rendered above, this Court refrains itself in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. In view thereof, both the writ petitions fails, and are dismissed.