ORDER : 1. State counsel accepts notice for respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.06.2020 (AnnexureA) passed by respondent No.2 in canceling the license registration of the petitioner, so also bringing him in the blacklist. 4. The petitioner is a Class-I contractor he was entrusted for execution and construction of Kodava Heritage Center Building at Madikeri. Pursuant to the tender notification dated 31.05.2011, the petitioner was a successful bidder. The allegation against the petitioner is that there is a delay in execution of the work etc., In this background, respondent No.2 has proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s license, so also bringing his name in the blacklisting. Respondent No.2 issued a showcause notice to the petitioner on 09.09.2019 for which, petitioner presented his explanation/reply on 04.10.2019. On receipt of petitioner’s explanation, respondent No.2 called for explanation from the Executive Engineer, PWD Department, Kodagu. Executive Engineer, PWD Department, Kodagu by its letter dated 11.11.2019 submitted that there are no material information to accept the explanation of the petitioner and it is to be rejected. Based on these facts and circumstances, respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 05.06.2020. At this juncture, it is necessary to extract portion of Annexure-A dated 05.06.2020, which reads as under: Any Other Language 5. Reading of the above extracted order it is evident that there is a total non-application of mind in passing impugned order by respondent No.2 in not examining the petitioner’s each of the contention raised in his explanation dated 04.10.2019 to the show cause notice, so also there is no material information to the extent how the Executive Engineer examine the petitioner’s explanation dated 04.10.2019. Similarly, respondent No.2 has not highlighted in the impugned order dated 05.06.2020 to the extent of petitioner’s explanation so as to reject the petitioners explanation dated 04.10.2019. 6. Thus, petitioner has made out a primafacie case so as to interfere with the order dated 05.06.2020 (Annexure-A). Accordingly, the same is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed reserving liberty to respondent No.2 – the Chief Executive Engineer to reexamine the grievance of the petitioner afresh. 6. Thus, petitioner has made out a primafacie case so as to interfere with the order dated 05.06.2020 (Annexure-A). Accordingly, the same is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed reserving liberty to respondent No.2 – the Chief Executive Engineer to reexamine the grievance of the petitioner afresh. Petitioner is also permitted to file additional explanation, if any along with the documents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of the petitioner’s additional explanation along with the documents, if any, the Chief Engineer-respondent No.2 is permitted to proceed in accordance with law in passing speaking order, such order shall be communicated to the petitioner at the earliest. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of petitioner’s additional explanation along with documents to be submitted, if any.