ORDER : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1.0. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “A. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the impugned communication dated 30.06.2020 and consequential inquiry proceedings thereof; IN THE ALTERNATIVE B. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting further process in the inquiry proceedings as provided under the communication impugned dated 30.06.2020 without following due process and providing the documents sought for by the petitioners; C. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside inquiry proceedings initiated consequential to show cause notices dated 12.01.2016 and all subsequent proceedings thereof as being malafide; IN THE ALTERNATIVE D. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction transferring the investigation to any officer of the Respondent no.1 Authority equivalent to or above the post of the Respondent No.2; E. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay further process and finalization in the inquiry proceedings against the petitioners; F. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay further process in the inquiry proceedings pursuant to the communication impugned dated 30.06.2020; G. Ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 27(E) and 27(F) above be granted:” 2.0. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the similar prayers were prayed for in this petition have been dealt with by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in earlier proceedings, which are narrated and described hereinafter. What is predominantly impugned in this petition is a communication dated 30.06.2020 and supply of documents. 3.0. The chronology of dates and events which can be culled out from the petition are as under: Date Particulars Date Particulars 15.2.2013 The respondent no.2 herein floated a tender for Printing Jeevan Shikshan Magazine and other required books vide advertisement dated 15.2.2013. The petitioner was declared lowest successful bidder for the same. 22.4.2013 The financial bids were opened on 22.4.2013. 24.4.2013 The respondent no.2 vide letter dated 24.4.2013 sought clarification from the petitioner no.1 as to whether the bid given for double side printing with paper was per side or in total. The petitioner was declared lowest successful bidder for the same. 22.4.2013 The financial bids were opened on 22.4.2013. 24.4.2013 The respondent no.2 vide letter dated 24.4.2013 sought clarification from the petitioner no.1 as to whether the bid given for double side printing with paper was per side or in total. 29.4.2013 The aforesaid was responded by petitioner no.1 on 29.4.2013. 15.5.2013 The work order was issued by the respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioner no.1 on 15.5.2013. 2014 One Shri Ranjan Amin raised inquiries/information of the bid under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also sought other financial details thereof. 8.1.2015 2.2.2015 One such complained was made to Controller and Auditor General Office, Rajkot on 8.1.2015 and 2.2.2015. CAG formulated a draft audit report giving preliminary findings to the effect that a loss was caused to the Government on account of action of the respondent in quoting the price per dual side printing. 2015 Writ Petition (PIL) No. 72 of 2015 was filed by a third party, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 20.04.2015. 12.1.2016 Based upon the CAG Report, respondent no.2 issued two show cause notices upon the petitioner firm dated 12.1.2016 for recovery of Rs.6.90 crores and also for blacklisting the petitioner firm. 20.1.2016 The aforesaid show cause notices was responded by the petitioner firm vide communication dated 20.1.2016. 8.2.2016 That again by communication dated 8.2.2016 the petitioner firm asked for requisite documents. 9.2.2016 The aforesaid communication dated 8.2.2016 was replied by the respondent no.2 vide communication dated 9.2.2016 informing the petitioner firm that on account of pendency of another PIL being Writ Petition (PIL) No.164 of 2015, no documents could be provided to the petitioner despite the issuance of show cause notice. 19.2.2016 Petitioner filed writ petition being SCA No.2683 of 2016. This Court by order dated 19.2.2016 has pleased to grant stay against any further action. 20.2.2016 Before the order could be served, by an order dated 20.2.2016 the petitioner firm was informed that petitioner firm has been blacklisted. 15.3.2016 Special Civil Application No.2683 of 2016 was heard and disposed of by an order dated 15.3.2016 and the order dated 20.2.2016 was quashed and set aside. 21.3.2016 By a communication dated 21.3.2016 detailed request for documents was made. 15.3.2016 Special Civil Application No.2683 of 2016 was heard and disposed of by an order dated 15.3.2016 and the order dated 20.2.2016 was quashed and set aside. 21.3.2016 By a communication dated 21.3.2016 detailed request for documents was made. 28.3.2016 The communication dated 21.3.2016 was responded by the respondent no.2 by providing some documents out of total demanded by the petitioner vide communication dated 28.3.2016. 11.4.2016 Detailed reply to the show cause notice came to be filed by the petitioner on 11.4.2016. That in the reply, it was pointed out that not all documents were provided and the order of the Hon’ble Court was not complied with and it was also stated that petitioner no.1 was responding based solely on those documents which were available and provided. 2.5.2016 Writ Petition (PIL) No. 164 of 2015 came to be filed by third party as a public interest, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 02.05.2016 wherein it is observed that as the State Government has initiated the proceedings for recovery of amount and blacklisting, the petitioner no.1 grievance would not survive and it is also further provided that appropriate order would be passed as expeditiously as possible in the said proceeding so initiated. 22.11.2016 The petitioner no.1 thereafter preferred one Special Civil Suit No.213 of 2016 on 22.11.2016 challenging the draft audit report of the CAG which was subsequently conditionally withdrawn on account of subsequent events of 2019. 2019 The petitioner thereafter filed Special Civil Application No.6649 of 2019. 6.5.2019 Communication of 6.5.2019 was issued by the respondent no.2 upon all the Directors including petitioner no.2 and asked for following; (I). direct the said persons to deposit Rs.6.9 crores within the period of 7 days from the receipt of notice with interest. (II). In the alternative sought to initiate criminal proceedings under the IPC against the Directors individually for cheating, breach of trust, tampering of documents and causing loss to the Government exchequer. (III). Calling upon the said Directors to show cause as to why the petitioner no.1 institution should not be blacklisted. (IV). Calling for explanation qua the same. 13.5.2019 The petitioner and its Director responded the communication dated 6.5.2019 by communication dated 13.5.2019. (III). Calling upon the said Directors to show cause as to why the petitioner no.1 institution should not be blacklisted. (IV). Calling for explanation qua the same. 13.5.2019 The petitioner and its Director responded the communication dated 6.5.2019 by communication dated 13.5.2019. 20.6.2019 Thereafter, a communication dated 20.6.2019 was issued making mala fide and baseless allegations of the petitioner not signing each and every page of its reply despite being required to do so and further pointing out that no response or notice was required for filing criminal complaint, however an opportunity was being provided to the Directors of the petitioner no.1 to show their trustworthiness. 29.6.2015 The communication dated 20.6.2019 was responded to on 29.6.2015 wherein the Directors of the petitioner no.1 had individually pointed out that there was non compliance of the order of the Court dated 15.3.2016, not all documents were provided and a hearing was required to be conducted prior to any decision being caused. 22.8.2019 A further communication was issued on 22.8.2019 by the respondent no.1. 30.09.2019 Thereafter, a notice dated 30.09.2019 was issued upon the petitioner to remain present for hearing on 10.10.2019. 9.10.2019 The petitioner again approached this Hon’ble Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2019 and this Court by way of order dated 9.10.2019 was pleased to issue notice to the respondents and in the meantime direct that no coercive action be undertaken against the petitioner. 12.2.2010 Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2019 was disposed of after considering the reply filed by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 12.2.2020. 18.2.2020 The petitioner filed representation on 18.2.2020 to the respondent no.2. 2.3.2020 The respondent no.2 responded to the representation dated 18.2.2020 on 2.3.2020. 24.3.2020 An FIR came to be lodged with the Gandhinagar Police Station on 24.3.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409,420, 467, 468 and 120 B of the IPC. 30.3.2020 The petitioner no.1 has filed application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Misc. Application No.5882 of 2020 and same was granted for some period vide order dated 30.3.2020. As the period was completed, another Criminal Misc. 30.3.2020 The petitioner no.1 has filed application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Misc. Application No.5882 of 2020 and same was granted for some period vide order dated 30.3.2020. As the period was completed, another Criminal Misc. Application No.6082 of 2020 is filed, which is pending and petitioner no.2 has been granted interim protection since in FIR reference is made to para 17 of the order of this Court in SCA No.17490 of 2019, MCA No.1 of 2020 was filed for clarification of the order dated 12.2.2020. 30.6.2020 Further communication was issued by the respondent no.2 dated 30.6.2020 calling upon the petitioners to attend the intended hearing to be concluded by him, present petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Arun D Oza, learned advocate for the respondent no.2. 5. Mr. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate at the outset, drew attention of the Court to the communication dated 21.3.2016 and also referred to the show cause notice dated 12.1.2016. It was contended by Mr. Kavina that, the Accountant General Rajkot has only given his tentative report and the said report is still not final. It was also contended by Mr. Kavina that detailed explanation from the Secretary, Education Department as to how the amount was paid to us was asked for and the said explanation has been given to the office of the Accountant General. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from the very beginning it is the case of the petitioner that matter has received detailed scrutiny of the entire hierarchy. It was further contended that the explanation given by the Education Department in the month of December (2015) and so also the explanation given by the respondent no.2 through Education Department in the month of December, more particularly, dated 14.12.2015 clearly shows the same. It was further contended that the respondent no.2 has given selectively response to them to show that they are responding correctly but the substance is never asked for. It was further contended that the respondent no.2 has given selectively response to them to show that they are responding correctly but the substance is never asked for. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner requested to provide copies of the explanation so given by the respondent no.2 with regard to the tender in the month of May 2015 and December 2015 which forms detailed response to the query of the Accountant General in respect of tender for the year 2013-14. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that what was given is to page nos. 1 to 958 and other pages and referring to query Q, it was contended that petitioner may further request to provide such correspondence. It was further contended that after the order passed by the Division Bench dated 15.3.2016 in Special Civil Application No.2683 of 2016 on 21.3.2016 request was made to supply such documents however nothing has been supplied to the petitioners. It was further contended that what is being supplied is in piecemeal. It was contended that even after second order passed by the Division Bench the documents and report are not supplied to the petitioners. Referring to the correspondence dated 18.2.2020 addressed by the petitioners pursuant to the order passed by this Court, it was contended that after giving whole background point wise demand was made. It was also contended that CAG has not recommended initiation of recovery. However, the same is being done at the instance of the respondent no.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners drew attention to the fact that the respondents have provided us with a copy of response issued by the organization to CAG dated 29.4.2015 and the petitioners therefore, raised a demand to provide the some sort of audit/inquiry report or to provide an inquiry report to CAG. It was contended that such documents are necessary in order to permit the petitioners to see the justification/proof of the same, in order to reach the conclusion as to how loss has occurred. It was contended that if such information is not provided with respect to individual invoices and bills on short supply, delayed supply or non supply and over charging beyond contractual agreed rates it would not possible to defend the charges raised bill wise. It was contended that if such information is not provided with respect to individual invoices and bills on short supply, delayed supply or non supply and over charging beyond contractual agreed rates it would not possible to defend the charges raised bill wise. Referring to the reply dated 18.2.2020 given by the respondent no.2, it was contended that the respondent no.2 has stated that they do not admit facts and allegations detrimental to the interest of this institutions. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to such communication further pointed out that in fact CAG has revised the notional loss figures from Rs.6.90 crores to Rs. 6.69 crores. It was further contended that even according to the respondent no.2 the said authority itself has carried out the exercise of verifying the documents and accounts so as to ascertain and cross check the figures in the interest of justice. 5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that on the very next day i.e. 24.3.2020 an FIR came to be lodged against the petitioners. Mr. Kavina further submitted that the petitioners have already applied for anticipatory bail in connection with the said FIR and protection was granted till 19.4.2020 and the petitioners have already applied for extension of the bail and same is yet to be heard. Referring to the same, it was also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned Judge has extended the protection granted and same is one of the ground of the petitioners that, lodging of the prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Mr. Kavina further drew attention of this Court to the fact that in fact the petitioner has already filed review application as in FIR there is a reference made to the observation made in para 17 of the order dated 12.2.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2020, however the same is not yet listed. It was contended that same charges were leveled against the officers of respondent no.2, such officers are exonerated whereas the FIR is lodged against the petitioners. It was contended that same charges were leveled against the officers of respondent no.2, such officers are exonerated whereas the FIR is lodged against the petitioners. Referring to the additional affidavit dated 26.8.2020 filed by the respondent no.2, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.2 has taken a stand that the prayers of the petitioners are too vague and that it is not possible to supply of list of such documents. Again referring to the communications dated 24.4.2013 and 29.4.2014 (Annexure B and C to the petition), it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that all documents are not provided and no reasons are provided. However, it was further contended that in order to comply with the order passed by this Court, reply to the show cause notice was given by the petitioner. It was further submitted that such fact has nothing to do with what transpires from 2016 to 2019. It was also contended that the stand taken by the respondent no.2 that pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners have supplied the list of documents, is also not true. Referring to the contention raised by the respondent no.2 in the said affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent has merely repeated the contention raised earlier and has only referred to the grievance of non furnishing of documents. 5.2. It was also contended that after the order was passed in Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2019 by the Division Bench of this Court by a detailed communication dated 18.2.2020, the petitioners had asked for the documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even according to the respondent no.2 such exercise to furnish the document was rightly to take some time because of bulk of the record. 5.3. It was further submitted that action of the respondent no.2 is wholly mala fide and petitioners have objection in carrying on the inquiry by deponent of the affidavit. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inquiry be initiated/carried out by any Secretary from the Department of Education or any other Department which may be deemed fit by this Court. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inquiry be initiated/carried out by any Secretary from the Department of Education or any other Department which may be deemed fit by this Court. Further referring to the impugned communication in main prayer prayed for in this petition, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that communication dated 27.5.2020 shows the conduct of the respondent no.2 in the height of lock down. It was however submitted that for three years inquiry has been pending and there was no reason to hurry up with same in this Covid period. It was also contended that the respondent no.2 addressed a communication dated 8.7.2020 which has been replied by the petitioner however, as no answer has been given by the respondent no.2, present petition is filed for writ of prohibition, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Utter Pradesh vs. Mohmad Nooh reported in 1958 SC 86. Referring to the chart at Annexure D to the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that such factual background is considered for the sake of forgery against the petitioners. Referring to the contents of the price quoted by the petitioners in the tender in question which was also very much on record before this Court in the earlier petition, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact respondent no.2 has justified the same by communication dated 29.4.2013. It was further submitted that such justification is also inclusive of the different size rates in all double side rates. It was reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that computation of loss of Rs.6.90 crores or Rs.6.60 crores have not been supplied by the respondent no.2. It was also alleged that such computation has been done by the respondent no.2 is wrong and without any basis and that is the main substance of dispute between the parties. 5.4. Referring to the Writ Petition being Public Interest Litigation filed before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government Pleader made statement on behalf of the State that High Power Committee is appointed. 5.4. Referring to the Writ Petition being Public Interest Litigation filed before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government Pleader made statement on behalf of the State that High Power Committee is appointed. It was further contended that the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2683 of 2016 was pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 20.02.2016 and three years have been completed and again inquiry started in 2019 by issuing communication dated 30.09.2019. It was alleged that the respondent no.2 has in fact concluded case against the petitioners. 5.5. Referring to the one communication issued by the Assistant Director – Logistics, ICDS, Commissionerate of Woman and Child Development, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a classic matter of mala fide and because of FIR filed and inquiry initiated against the petitioner firm, the allegation of fraud is made by the said authority against the petitioners. On the aforesaid ground, it was therefore, contended that impugned communication and consequential proceedings be quashed and set aside and proceedings be stayed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Arun D Oza, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has extensively referred to the affidavit dated 6.8.2020 filed in the present petition and additional affidavit dated 26.8.2020. Opposing the petition, Mr. Oza, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 contended that in fact, the petitioners are not cooperating in the inquiry even though directed by this Court in Writ Petition being Public Interest Litigation and subsequent petitions filed by the petitioner. Mr. Oza contended that petitioners filed a Special Civil Suit for declaration and injunction and the same was pending before the Civil Court for a period of more than two years which has been recently withdrawn on rejection of the temporary injunction application and therefore, in due reference of the same, inquiry was not conducted further by the respondent no.2. It was contended by the respondent no.2 that on demand made by the petitioners the calculations were provided. Mr. Oza contended that the individual Chartered Accountant was consulted and calculations have been made by such Chartered Accountant. Mr. Oza referring to the correspondence dated 19.11.2019 contended that all the documents have been supplied which are to be relied upon by the respondent no.2 as per the directions issued by this Court. Mr. Oza contended that the individual Chartered Accountant was consulted and calculations have been made by such Chartered Accountant. Mr. Oza referring to the correspondence dated 19.11.2019 contended that all the documents have been supplied which are to be relied upon by the respondent no.2 as per the directions issued by this Court. Referring to the orders passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2683 of 2016, Writ Petition (PIL) No.164 of 2015, Writ Petition (PIL) No.72 of 2015 and Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2019, it was contended by Mr. Oza that all the documents have been supplied and inquiry has been initiated accordingly. Mr. Oza contended that the petitioners has filed two petitions after clear cut directions were issued by this Court under one pretext or the other. It was contended that in fact impugned communication dated 30.06.2020 in this petition is only intimation to remain present for inquiry. It was contended that the petitioner no.1 is a company and many other Directors are there and therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the inquiry is mala fide, is without any basis. It was contended by Mr. Oza that let the inquiry be completed and the petitioner shall have all chances of defence before such Inquiry Officer. Mr. Oza further contended that the inquiry is being conducted by the highest officers in rank in respondent no.2 organization and therefore, the allegations leveled by the petitioners are without any basis. Mr. Oza further contended that as such petitioners have repeated the contentions which were already decided by this Court and as per the additional affidavit dated 26.8.2020, it was reiterated by Mr. Oza that petitioners came up with demand of certain new documents with a intention to stall the inquiry proceedings and the present petition is also filed with such intention. It was contended that no demand of supply of document at all was raised by the petitioners after communication dated 28.3.2016 as the petitioners could not succeed in their intention of stalling the inquiry on the ground of non supply of document before this Court. Mr. It was contended that no demand of supply of document at all was raised by the petitioners after communication dated 28.3.2016 as the petitioners could not succeed in their intention of stalling the inquiry on the ground of non supply of document before this Court. Mr. Oza further referring to additional affidavit dated 26.8.2020 contended that vide communication dated 8.2.2020 certain documents are asked for the first time which are irrelevant and the respondent does not rely on such document and though detailed reply has been given by the respondent no.2 vide communication dated 27.5.2020, the frivolous petition has been filed which would adversely affect the inquiry proceedings. On the aforesaid ground, Mr. Oza therefore contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader adopted the argument of Mr. Oza, learned advocate for the respondent no.2. 8. No other and further submissions, grounds and contentions have been raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 9. Before referring to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the following facts. That the respondent no.2 floated a tender for Printing Jeevan Shikshan Magazine and other required books. The petitioner no.1 company in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.2.2013 gave its bid which was accepted by the respondent no.2 as being lowest bid, more particularly, for Printing of magazine known as Jeevan Shikshan Magazine and other required books. As the facts revealed, the tender process so initiated by the respondent no.2 culminated into a work order given to petitioner no.1 dated 15.5.2013. 10. As the record indicates that one Shri Rajan Amin made inquiry under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and Shri Rajan Amin also made complain before the other authorities including Controller and Audit General office at Rajkot. The report came to be submitted by the Accountant General after submissions made by the respondent no.2 as well that a loss has occurred to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs.6.90 crores because of over payment made to petitioner no.1. 11. The Public Interest Petition being No. 72 of 2015 was filed by one Prakash Kapadia which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Mr. V.M. Sahai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.D. Kothari) vide order dated 20.04.2015. 11. The Public Interest Petition being No. 72 of 2015 was filed by one Prakash Kapadia which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Mr. V.M. Sahai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.D. Kothari) vide order dated 20.04.2015. Thereafter, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 164 of 2015 was filed by Prakash Kapadia, wherein detailed affidavit was filed by the State of Gujarat through Under Secretary, Education Department and the Division Bench of this Court took note of the fact that proceeding for recovery of the amount and blacklisting of the petitioner firm having been initiated, grievance of the writ petitioner would not survive and the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observed as follows. “3. In view of above initiation of proceedings for recovery of amount and blacklisting of respondent no.5, the grievance in the present petition will not survive. However, in view of the fact that the Government has initiated proceedings, we dispose of this petition with the observation that in the proceedings initiated, appropriate orders will be passed as expeditiously as possible.” 11.1 Thus, the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 164 of 2015 dated 02.05.2016 wherein this Court has taken note of the fact that show cause notice has been issued on 12.1.2016 by the respondent no.2 herein followed by other show cause notice dated 12.1.2016. Thus, the genesis of the inquiry in question lies in the show cause notices dated 12.1.2016, which has been considered and on the basis of which Writ Petition (PIL) No.164 of 2015 came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mr. R. Subhash Reddy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M Pancholi) by issuing appropriate directions. As the record reveals that the petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2683 of 2016 the predominantly challenging the order dated 20.02.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 in respect to the show cause notices dated 12.1.2016. While disposing of the said petition vide order dated 15.3.2016, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Z.K. Saiyed) was observed thus: “10. While disposing of the said petition vide order dated 15.3.2016, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Z.K. Saiyed) was observed thus: “10. For all these reasons, we are inclined to place the matter back before the director of GCERT for reconsideration after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend the allegations. For such purpose impugned order dated 20.2.2016 is quashed. 11. The petitioner's request however, for supply of such of the documents as the director of GCERT may consider useful in the petitioner's defence is too vague and general to be accepted. In that context, we have gathered from the counsel for the petitioner as to which precise documents, the petitioner demands. He stated three sets of documents as under : (1) the computation of alleged loss of Rs.6.90 crores. (2) all those documents that the respondents seek to place reliance on for passing any order adverse to the petitioner. (3) The responses of GCERT to the queries raised by the Government. 12. Insofar as the first two sets of documents, they pose no serious complication. GCERT would supply to the petitioner the computation of alleged loss of Rs.6.90 crores. Learned Advocate General stated that the documents that GCERT seeks to place reliance, are already on record. If there is any further document which GCERT seeks to rely, the same shall be supplied to the petitioner. 13. Regarding last set of documents, the prayer of the petitioner is too vague and general. During the course of correspondence, in an issue as complicated as the present one, there is bound to have been detailed questions and answers between the Accountant General and the GCERT. It would not be possible to supply the whole list of such documents. Therefore, if the petitioner latest by 21.3.2016 makes a specific reference to any particular document, the authorities shall either supply the same or site reasons why the same cannot be granted. 14. All the documents whether they fall in set no.1, 2 or 3, shall be supplied latest by 28.3.2016. The petitioner shall file reply to the show cause notice latest by 11.4.2016. 14. All the documents whether they fall in set no.1, 2 or 3, shall be supplied latest by 28.3.2016. The petitioner shall file reply to the show cause notice latest by 11.4.2016. It would be thereafter, open for the authorities to take a final decision in accordance with law.” 11.2 As observed by this Court in the order dated 12.02.2020 in Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2019, Civil Suit being Special Civil Suit No. 231 of 2016 was filed by the petitioners before the Civil Court, Gandhinagar against the Accountant General and Director for declaration and injunction. By an order dated 24.12.2018 the Civil Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. The petitioners thereafter filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2019 inter alia praying for following reliefs: “(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, setting aside the impugned communication dated 30.09.2019 initiated pursuant to communication dated 06.05.2019 and consequential inquiry proceedings thereof; IN THE ALTERNATIVE (B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting further process in the inquiry proceedings as provided under the communication impugned dated 30.09.2019 and initiated vide communication dated 06.05.2019 without following due process and providing the documents sought for by the petitioners; (C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay further process and finalization in the inquiry proceedings against the petitioners; (D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay further process in the inquiry proceedings pursuant to the communication impugned dated 30.09.2019; (E) ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para-27(C) and 27(D) above be granted.” After considering the submissions made before the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.D. Karia) vide order dated 12.02.2020 observed thus: “14. The picture that emerges from the materials on record is that the adjudication as regards the original show-cause notice which came to be issued to the Company way back in the year 2016 is pending as on date with the authority concerned. Those proceedings have not attained finality. It appears that in the original show-cause notice, the Company was called upon to show-cause why it should not be blacklisted and why an amount of Rs.6.90 Crores should not be recovered from the Company. Those proceedings have not attained finality. It appears that in the original show-cause notice, the Company was called upon to show-cause why it should not be blacklisted and why an amount of Rs.6.90 Crores should not be recovered from the Company. It is but obvious that the Company, being the legal entity, will be represented by its Directors. The Directors of the Company are attending those proceedings. Indisputably, those proceedings are still pending. We are not able to understand that, pending such proceedings, what was the good reason for the respondent No.2 to issue the impugned communication. For the time being, we go by the reply of Mr. Oza that the impugned communication is not in the form of a showcause notice but it is an intimation to the Directors that the respondent No.2 is not convinced with the case put up by them. Well if that be so, then it is always open for the Authority concerned to complete the inquiry and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. We may only say that pending the adjudication of the proceedings initiated way back in 2016, there was no good reason to issue the impugned communication. In our opinion, it is nothing but the repetition of the very same thing that has been stated in the first show cause notice. 15. It will be in the fitness of things if the inquiry is concluded at the earliest so that the authority concerned can proceed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. A lot has been argued with regard to non furnishing of few relevant documents. The learned senior counsel appearing for the writ applicant would say that the documents have not been furnished. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would say that all the relevant documents have been furnished. 16. We are not going into this issue at this stage. Failure to furnish relevant documents may entail into its own legal consequences. We may only say that the impugned communication is unnecessary and not, at all, relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of the proceedings which are pending as on date. In such circumstances, the impugned communication can be ignored. We have no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the impugned communication. The impugned notification is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. 17. In such circumstances, the impugned communication can be ignored. We have no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the impugned communication. The impugned notification is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. 17. We dispose of this writ application with the following directions; (I) The inquiry which has been initiated way back in the year 2016 pursuant to the show-cause notice issued by the respondent No.2 to the Company shall now be concluded in accordance with law. On conclusion of such inquiry, it shall be open for the authority concerned to pass appropriate order. If the writ applicant No.1- Company and its Directors are aggrieved in any manner by the order that may be passed by the authority concerned, it will be open for them to challenge such order before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. We may only say that the writ applicant No.1-Company and its Directors shall cooperate in the inquiry and see to it that the same is concluded one way or the other. 18. At this stage, we may clarify that quashing of the impugned communication shall not come in the way of the respondent No.2 for the purpose of initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 19. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.” 11.3. The record further reveals that pursuant to the said order, by a communication dated 18.2.2020 the petitioners approached respondent no.2, which was replied by respondent no.2 vide communication dated 2.3.2020. Again, the petitioners have approached this by way of this petition and have prayed for as indicated herein above. 12. First we may consider the impugned communication dated 30.06.2020. Upon bare reading of the impugned communication dated 30.06.2020 it clearly shows that the respondent no.2 has made reference to show cause notices, orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions (PIL) Nos. 72 of 2015 and 164 of 2015, order passed by the Division Bench in Special Civil Application No.2683 of 2016 and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2019, the letter of the petitioner no.1 dated 18.2.2020, reply given by the respondent no.2 dated 28.2.2020, letter of the petitioners dated 9.3.2020 and reply given by the respondent no.2 dated 27.5.2020. the said communications further indicate that after receipt of the letter of the petitioners dated 9.3.2020, after a short period because of the present situation of Covid 19 pandemic. As per the clarification made by the respondent no.2 vide communication dated 27.5.2020, 1224 pages have been given to the petitioners. It is also referred by the respondent no.2 that the copy of the report of the CAG is already with the petitioners, as petitioners challenged the same by way of filing Special Civil Suit before the Principal Civil Court wherein the Civil Court has dismissed the injunction application. It is also stated that the necessary documents have been already supplied to the petitioners. Referring to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2019, the petitioners have been asked to remain present on 9.7.2020 at 12 hours at the office of the respondent no.2 We find that all that has been communicated by the respondent no.2 vide impugned communication dated 30.06.2020 to the petitioners is to remain present in the inquiry on the date fixed i.e. 9.7.2020. Apart from the fact that the said date is already now gone/elapsed, we do not find any irregularity in such communication taking into consideration the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 164 of 2015 and the observations made by the Division Bench of this court in Special Civil Application No.2683 of 2016 vide order dated 15.3.2015 and Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2019 vide order dated 12.02.2020 13. The impugned communication dated 30.06.2020 is admittedly after the Government declared unlock 1 and when the Government Offices were reopened by the State Government and hence by way of impugned communication hearing was kept by the respondent no.2 authority was not during the period of Lock-down. Be that as it may be so the hearing can be conducted by maintaining the standard of procedure as prescribed by the Government 14. Be that as it may be so the hearing can be conducted by maintaining the standard of procedure as prescribed by the Government 14. As far as the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners as regards so called explanation/justification to the questions which are to be decided in the inquiry is concerned, the same is pending at large before the Inquiry Officer and therefore, whether rates prescribed by the petitioner no.1 in the tender and whether payment made by the authority is proper or in accordance with is not to be decided by this Court in the present petition. 15. Even at the cost of repetition, it deserves to be noted that the genesis of the show cause notice dated 12.1.2016 is in the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 164 of 2015 vide order dated 2.5.2016 and anything contrary to that would amount to upseting the finding arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 164 of 2015. From the record of the petition as well as from the submission, we do not find that the respondent no.2 is not following due process of law. As far as second limb of argument put forward before us as regards supply of document is concerned, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment and order dated 15.3.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.2683 of 2016 and judgment and order dated 12.02.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17490 of 2019. When the petitioners first approached this Court by way of writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 2683 of 2016, as already discussed herein above, the petitioners asked for certain documents and appropriate directions were issued. Again in the second writ petition also same contention of supply of relevant documents was raised and the Division Bench has aptly dealt with the same in para 16of the judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application No. 17490 of 2019. The petitioners have again raise the same issue in the present petition. We reiterate that we are not going into the said issue in this petition and as observed by the Division Bench earlier in Special Civil Application No. 17490 of 2019 and prayer to furnish the relevant documents may entail into its own legal consequence. The petitioners have again raise the same issue in the present petition. We reiterate that we are not going into the said issue in this petition and as observed by the Division Bench earlier in Special Civil Application No. 17490 of 2019 and prayer to furnish the relevant documents may entail into its own legal consequence. At this stage, it is also appropriate to note that respondent no.2 has filed an additional affidavit in this petition and the respondent no.2 has categorically stated that vide communication dated 18.2.2020, the petitioner has sought certain documents for the first time which are irrelevant and respondent no.2 does not rely upon such documents. The fact remains that as per the earlier directions issued in Special Civil Application No.2683 of 2016, the documents have been supplied. 16. In facts of this case, we do not find any mala fide as alleged and same are made without any basis and the same, would not vitiate the inquiry in any manner. As stated above, inquiry is to be conducted which is pending since 2016 based upon the directions issued by this Court and therefore, we do not find any mala fide as alleged. Today, Mr. A. D. Oza, learned advocate has informed at bar that the Inquiry Officer has been changed and inquiry has been now handed over to Ms. E. Bharti, I.A.S., State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan. Mr. Oza, learned advocate has also produced on record, through What’s-up. the copy of order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the State Government, the same is taken on record. The petitioner is at liberty to take all available contentions before such Inquiry Officer. We find that similar directions have already been issued in para 17 of the judgment and order dated 12.02.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.17490 of 2019. 17. The petitioners have not made a reference of Civil Suit being filed by the petitioners challenging the CAG report as well as inquiry in this petition. On the contrary, it appears that even though no stay was granted because of pendency of such suit, the inquiry was not conducted further by the respondent no.2. Considering the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) Nos.164 of 2015 and 72 of 2015, the inquiry needs to be concluded as expeditiously as possible. 18. On the contrary, it appears that even though no stay was granted because of pendency of such suit, the inquiry was not conducted further by the respondent no.2. Considering the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) Nos.164 of 2015 and 72 of 2015, the inquiry needs to be concluded as expeditiously as possible. 18. Upon examining the facts as a whole, it also deserves to be noted that after the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2683 of 2016, the petitioners demanded the documents vide its communication dated 21.3.2016 as per the question A to W. The record indicates that the respondent no.2 replied to the same vide communication dated 28.3.2016 and provided the documents as mentioned in the said communication. As record indicates that the petitioners filed detailed reply to the show cause notice on 11.4.2016 and thereafter for the first time in the year 2019, the petitioners raised issue of supply of relevant document, which has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 17490 of 2019 vide order dated 12.2.2020 and considering the observations made by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 17490 of 2019 vide order dated 12.2.2020, the inquiry is required to be completed as expeditiously as possible. 19. Even the contention raised by the petitioners that the petitioners have preferred review application in Special Civil Application No. 17490 of 2019, would be of no avail. 20. It is matter of fact that now inquiry shall be conducted by Special Officer appointed by State Government, as per orders/directions given by this Court. The petitioners are given an opportunity of being heard and therefore, it cannot be said that there is a breach of principles of natural justice. It is expected that the petitioner being Private Limited Company and as informed at bar that there are 5 Directors, therefore, it is expected that the petitioner no.1 shall cooperate with the Inquiry Officer, so appointed. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), in opinion of this Court are on different set of facts and as stated above, the petitioners are given an opportunity of being heard, the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said case would not be applicable in the present case. In facts of this Court, we do not find any reasonable doubt about fairness of administration of justice. 21. Bare reading of the Email/communication dated 6.8.2020 also indicates that such communication is written by third party and there is nothing on record to show that it is written to the petitioner as bidder at the instance of the respondent no.2 authority and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent no.2 is acting in mala fide manner. 22. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we find that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The petitioners shall cooperate in the inquiry and it is expected that the inquiry shall be completed as expeditiously as possible. As appropriate observations and directions have been issued by this Court in earlier orders as mentioned herein above, no further directions are necessary to be given in this petition. Consequently, present petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.