ORDER : 1. The instant is a case of classical example, where a clearcut message needs to be sent to the Society that there is no shortcut for earning livelihood or becoming rich overnight. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following reliefs:- “A. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing letter dated 15th March, 2022 (Annexure P-6) issued in favour of the respondent No.5 only by ignoring petitioner-firm. B. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioner-firm for the supply of Sewing Machines as have been approved by the State Government vide Annexure P-4. C. That the entire record pertaining to the case may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. D. That the petition may kindly be allowed with heavy costs throughout.” 3. It is averred that even though the respondents No.1 to 3 approved the rates for work of supply of Sewing Machines and the petitioner as also respondent No. 5, yet to the chagrin and surprise of the petitioner, respondents No.2 and 3 without assigning any reason or cause had ignored the petitioner-Firm and vide impugned letter dated 15.3.2022 had awarded annual rate of contract of Sewing Machines to respondent No.5. This not only prompted but in fact pre-empted this Court to stay the operation of the impugned letter dated 15.3.2022 and also calling for second respondent to the Court along with relevant record. 4. On 25.3.2022, the Director of respondent No.2 personally appeared before this Court and astounded by the conduct of the petitioner and then this Court passed the following order:- “In compliance to the order passed by this Court on 24.3.2022, Mr. Vivek Bhatia, Director Empowerment of SCs & OBCs, Minorities the Specially Abled Shimla, has appeared in person and informed the Court that even though, rate contract was issued in favour of the petitioner, as also in favour of 5th respondent vide order dated 24th February, 2022, however, the petitioner has tampered with letter dated 24th February, 2022 and instead of showing itself and 5th respondent as successful bidders, it conveniently choose to omit the name of 5th respondent, thereby giving the impression that the rate contract had been awarded solely in its favour. 2. 2. Not only this, letters were issued to various Offices and on the basis of that, orders in District Solan and Kullu, i.e. (489 Sewing Machine) were procured by the petitioner. 3. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to continue with the interim protection that was granted to the Proprietor of the petitioner, rather we find that the act and conduct of the Proprietor of the petitioner in filing this petition on the basis of fabricated and forged documents prima facie amounts to contempt. Interim order passed by this Court is accordingly vacated. 4. Accordingly, we proceed to issue show cause to the Proprietor of the petitioner as to why Proprietor should not be prosecuted and punished for having placed false, fabricated documents and also concealed the material facts from this Court and filed the instant petition on the basis of tampered documents. List on 28th March, 2022. Personal appearance of the Officer present in the Court is dispensed with.” 5. Vide order dated 28.3.2022, the petitioner was directed to remain present on 29.3.2022 to answer the charges that may be framed in the contempt petition. However, on 29.3.2022, the counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw his Power of Attorney, which was duly granted and the petitioner present in person was granted two weeks’ time to engage another counsel. 6. The case was taken up today and at the outset, petitioner along with Sh. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate, tendered unconditional apology and accepted and acknowledged his mistake as also what has been recorded in the order dated 25.3.2022 and as the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family. At this stage, it needs to be noticed that the conduct of the petitioner, as regards the respondent-Department has really not been very good as is evident from the instructions dated 23.3.2022, which was placed before the Court. 7. It would be apposite to reproduce paras 5 to 8 of of those instructions, which read as under:- “5. That in this regard it is submitted that firstly the petitioner firm was supplying the sewing machines to the department mostly over the recent years which has created monopoly in the market with minimal quality control and due to which the quality of supply material has not been remained/ found up to the mark. The agencies have also been affected by lack of choice due to this monopoly. The agencies have also been affected by lack of choice due to this monopoly. In this regard, as an instance, a written complaint of Panchayat Samiti was received through District Welfare Officer, Kangra on dated 16.10.2019 in the office of respondent No.2, in which it has been brought out that the quality of sewing machines being supplied to the beneficiaries are not up to the mark or of good quality (copy enclosed as Annexure R2/1). Besides above, many informal verbal complaints from local representatives/ general public regarding quality of the sewing machines supplied by the petitioner firm have also been received from time to time. 6. The petitioner firm also been found to be unduly influencing this office and all the field offices throughout various means. As an instance a correspondence has been received from the Controller of Stores, H.P. vide dated 17.03.2022 (copy enclosed as Annexure R2/II) vide which in the letter/complaint of respondent No.5, it has been alleged that petitioner firm is involved in the fraudulent practices as it is offering lesser price of the sewing machines to the District Welfare Officers from the tender approved rate contract, which is a violation of rate contract. This is just a formal instance of the kind of monopolistic clout the petitioner firm enjoys in the implementation of Scheme. 7. It is apt to note that the prima facie, sample product has been provided by the respondent No.5 to the department with the representation/proposal, however the petitioner has neither submitted any proposal/ representation for supplying the sewing machines as per the approved contract nor provided any sample to this department and without any such representation, petitioner firm cannot claim such relief as sought for. The Department has all the reasons to go with the existing system of monopoly, but no compromise can be mad in respect of quality of the product/tools being provided to the beneficiaries under the welfare schemes as these are provided to beneficiaries with low incomes and the equipments aims to sustain and enhance their livelihood under the Scheme. 8. The Schedule C, clause 10 give preference to local Micro and small scale units of HP and slight discretion has been placed before Head of Department to ensure the quality standards and material. As already submitted, the equipments under this Scheme aim to provide self-employment to low income groups and economically weaker sections of the society. 8. The Schedule C, clause 10 give preference to local Micro and small scale units of HP and slight discretion has been placed before Head of Department to ensure the quality standards and material. As already submitted, the equipments under this Scheme aim to provide self-employment to low income groups and economically weaker sections of the society. Keeping in view of the concerns about regular complaints about the quality of the product supplied by the petitioner firm, the supply order was granted to Respondent-5, which is valid firm under the rate contact in the record of the Department.” 8. Since the petitioner has acknowledged his guilt and tendered unconditional apology, therefore, We deem it appropriate to drop the contempt proceedings by discharging the notices. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and therefore, We direct that:- (i) The petitioner shall not be eligible for award of any contract under or on behalf of the Government of Himachal Pradesh or any of its Corporation(s) etc., falling within the meaning of Article 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the H.P. Advocates Welfare Association within a period of four weeks. 9. It shall be duty of the Director of Industries to circulate the copy of this Judgment to the concerned quarters. For compliance, to come 13.6.2022. 10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.