ORDER : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. Petitioner by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the letter of communication of order dated 03.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) whereby Letter of Intent ('LOI') bearing No.SECL:BSP:CMC:1050 dated 24.08.2021 was cancelled, petitioner firm was banned from participating in any future tender in South Eastern Coalfields Limited ('SECL') and subsidiaries of Coal India Limited ('CIL') for a period of 24 months and imposed penalty of Rs.31,38,12,832.28 (Rupees Thirty One Crore Thirty Eight Lakh Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Two and Paise Twenty Eight only). 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition, are that, petitioner is a joint venture of Ranavir Projects & Goldmine Power Infrastructure Industries engaged in civil constructions and other works. Respondents issued e-Tender (Annexure P/2) vide Tender Notice No.SECL/BSP/CMC/e-Tender/450 dated 13.05.2021 for “Hiring of Vertical Ripper machines or other suitable strata cutter machines to be used as primary extraction machine for blast less excavation in all kinds of strata/overburden/in seam bands on per cum basis and hiring of HEMM for excavation, mechanical loading, mechanical transportation, unloading, the excavation material and silt, dumping, dozing, scrapping, preparation and maintenance of haul road, water sprinkling and spreading of material and other allied activities at the site shown in the plan and as per the directives of management/engineer in charge of the Dipka Expansion Project for a total quantity of 153,01,614 cum in 730 days @ 20,961 Cum/day” at Dipka OC, Tehsil : Katghora, Dist : Korba, State : Chhattisgarh, Pin-495452. The estimated value of work was Rs.1,68,71,65,764.92 (inclusive of GST) to be completed within a period of 730 days. Petitioner along with other tenderers submitted their bids, in which petitioner became successful being L-1 bidder. Petitioner was issued LOI on 24.08.2021. As per requirement of tender conditions, petitioner was required to furnish Performance Security Deposit ('PSD') in prescribed form, details of which is given under Instructions to Bidders. The amount of PSD was quantified as Rs.2,35,35,963.00, which is equal to 3% of the annualized value of contract amount. The period prescribed for furnishing PSD was 21 days from the date of issuance of LOI. Petitioner on 29.09.2021 wrote letter to respondents submitting drafts of Bank Guarantee issued from the EMERIO BANQUE Ltd. (Bank) for approval. The amount of PSD was quantified as Rs.2,35,35,963.00, which is equal to 3% of the annualized value of contract amount. The period prescribed for furnishing PSD was 21 days from the date of issuance of LOI. Petitioner on 29.09.2021 wrote letter to respondents submitting drafts of Bank Guarantee issued from the EMERIO BANQUE Ltd. (Bank) for approval. Petitioner failed to submit PSD as required in terms of tender document, which made the respondents to issue letters to the petitioner reminding to submit PSD within the stipulated period. Petitioner failed to submit PSD in the form of Bank Guarantee in terms of tender document. Show-cause notice was issued and thereafter, considering the reply submitted to show-cause notice to be non-satisfactory, order of cancellation of LOI, banning the petitioner for a period of 24 months and penalty to the tune of Rs.31,38,12,832.28 was issued. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 Quash the entire impugned Order dated 03.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) on account of it being violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, contrary to article 14 rule of law and being illegal. 10.2 Direct the Respondent SECL to consider representations of the Petitioner (Annexure P/17 (Colly.) to accept the bank guarantee of EUROPA BANK Public Limited as valid on account of no available bidders to fresh tenders and ECL having already accepted the same, to treat equals as equals under article 14. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted to the Petitioner.” 3. Respondents submitted reply to the writ petition raising preliminary objection of maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy under clause 13 & 13A of the Conditions of Contract. Further raised objection of involvement of disputed facts. The dispute being commercial contractual dispute and there is delay and laches on the part of petitioner in filing writ petition stating that petitioner approached the Court after lapse of about more than five months from the date of passing of the orders under challenge. It is pleaded that petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of tender document, not furnished PSD of Scheduled Bank as required, not signed the Integrity Pact & Agreement and failed to commence the work. It is pleaded that petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of tender document, not furnished PSD of Scheduled Bank as required, not signed the Integrity Pact & Agreement and failed to commence the work. Therefore, after issuance of show-cause notice, order terminating the LOI, forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit ('EMD'), banning of petitioner from participating in future bids and penalty of 20% of value of work in terms of clause 9.2(c) of General Terms and Conditions was issued. It is also pleaded BANK Guarantee issued from EMERIO BANQUE Ltd., Chennai (Foreign Bank), was not acceptable in view of clause 4.2 of General Terms and Conditions and clause 24.1 of Instructions to Bidders because the Bank of which, Bank Guarantee was submitted, was not a Scheduled Bank. 4. Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that action taken by respondents of issuance of impugned order (Annexure P/1) is per se illegal and arbitrary. After issuance of LOI, petitioner submitted PSD through Bank draft issued by EMERIO BANQUE to the tune of INR Rs.2,35,35,963.00, a Foreign Bank located at Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, Chennai. Clause 24.1(b) of Instructions to Bidders permits for Bank Guarantee of Foreign Bank. Though as per clause 24, PSD is to be submitted within 21 days from issuance of LOI, tender document provides discretion of management for extending period by 14 days on case to case basis, and therefore, delay, if any, in submitting Bank Guarantee towards PSD is within the zone of discretion for extension of time provided under tender document. Tender document clearly prescribes for acceptance of Bank Guarantee of Scheduled Bank or Foreign Bank located in India. Non acceptance of the Bank Guarantee of EMERIO BANQUE Ltd. (Foreign Bank) is arbitrary in view of clause 24.1 (b) of Instructions to Bidders and 4.2 (b) of General Terms and Conditions. Bank Guarantee of EMERIO BANQUE Ltd. has been accepted by other Government Departments and Organizations including National Highway Authority of India and Directorate of Education Ministry, New Delhi. It is submitted by him that another subsidiary of CIL i.e. Eastern Coalfields Limited accepted the Bank Guarantee issued by EUROPA Bank, and therefore, action taken by respondents-SECL is discriminatory in not accepting the Bank Guarantee issued by EMERIO BANQUE Ltd. Ltd. (Foreign Bank). It is submitted by him that another subsidiary of CIL i.e. Eastern Coalfields Limited accepted the Bank Guarantee issued by EUROPA Bank, and therefore, action taken by respondents-SECL is discriminatory in not accepting the Bank Guarantee issued by EMERIO BANQUE Ltd. Ltd. (Foreign Bank). He further contended that in show-cause notice dated 18.10.2021, there is no specific mention of proposed action of imposing penalty, but for cancellation of LOI and banning of minimum period of 24 months. After receipt of show-cause notice dated 18.10.2021, petitioner immediately submitted reply and shown its willingness to work and to submit PSD. Order Annexure P/1 dated 03.11.2021 was passed without application of mind and is a nonspeaking order. It is contended that respondents further erred in issuing fresh e-Tender for the same scope of work on 01.11.2021, which was cancelled for want of sufficient numbers of bidders and second Notice Inviting Tender ('NIT') for the same work was again cancelled. Cancellation of LOI, banning and imposition of penalty is violative to principles of natural justice. He pointed out that reading of clause 9.2 of General Terms and Conditions would show that penalty can be imposed upon termination of contract or cancellation of contract, whereas in the case at hand, there was no contract between the parties. The show-cause notice was inadequate. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 and the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.2856 of 2020 decided on 12.02.2021 (M/ s. SBJ Projects (P) Ltd. v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Another) and in Writ Petition (C) No.2577 of 2020 decided on 16.02.2021 (M/s Jai Ambey Roadlines v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Another). 5. Per contra, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that order impugned is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without application of mind is per se wrong. He contended that the idea and understanding of petitioner that Bank Guarantee of EMERIO BANQUE Ltd. being a Foreign Bank is in accordance with terms and conditions of tender document, is also not correct. He contended that the idea and understanding of petitioner that Bank Guarantee of EMERIO BANQUE Ltd. being a Foreign Bank is in accordance with terms and conditions of tender document, is also not correct. In tender document under clause 4.2 of General Terms and Conditions, there is a condition of furnishing 3% of annualized value of contract amount or contract value whichever is lower within a period of 21 days from issuance of LOA as PSD. It clearly mention the demand draft drawn on any of the Scheduled Bank. Along with form of Bank Guarantee for performance security, list of Scheduled Commercial Banks is also enclosed including Public Sector Banks, Private Sector Banks and Foreign Banks. In the list of Scheduled Foreign Banks, name of EMERIO BANQUE Ltd., of which petitioner furnished Bank Guarantee is not mentioned, and therefore, Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner though after prescribed period of 21 days was found to be non-acceptable. It is submitted by him that when tender document bears specific terms and conditions of submission of Bank Guarantee from any of the Scheduled Banks, it is for the petitioner to fulfill the requirement in terms of the conditions as mentioned in tender document. When petitioner failed to furnish Bank Guarantee as required under tender document and failed to execute agreement, letter was issued to the petitioner before expiry of period of 21 days reminding for submission of PSD on 06.09.2021, 18.09.2021, 24.09.2021 and 29.09.2021. Respondents have given ample time and intimation for submission of PSD and to start the work. As the Bank Guarantee submitted was of non-Scheduled Bank, respondents have rightly not accepted the same, consequently, show-cause notice was issued. Petitioner submitted reply to show-cause notice, which was found to be non-satisfactory and only thereafter, order impugned (Annexure P/1) was passed. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of respondents. Principles of natural justice has been followed, amount of penalty is also quantified and calculated in accordance with terms and conditions of tender document. He also submits that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy as provided under clause 13 of tender document of settlement of disputes and clause 13A for settling the dispute through arbitration. He also submits that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy as provided under clause 13 of tender document of settlement of disputes and clause 13A for settling the dispute through arbitration. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of State of Gujarat and Others v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and Others reported in (1994) 3 SCC 552 , State of U.P. and Others v. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 22 , Kerala State Electricity Board and Another v. Kurien E. Kalathil and Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 293 and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited and Others v. Vardan Linkers and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 500 . 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 7. The root of initiation of proceedings against the petitioner followed by passing an order vide Annexure P/1 is that the petitioner failed to submit Bank Guarantee towards PSD within the period prescribed in tender document of the Scheduled Bank or of Bank acceptable to the respondent. 8. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for respective parties, we find it appropriate to extract relevant clauses of tender document including Instructions to Bidders and General Terms and Conditions. Clause 24 of Instructions to Bidders deals with performance security/security deposit. Relevant portion of clause 24.1(i) reads as follows : “24. PERFORMANCE SECURITY/SECURITY DEPOSIT 24.1 Security Deposit shall consist of two parts: x x x x x x (i) Performance Security should be 3% of annualized value of contract amount or contract value whichever is lower (For contract having period upto 5 years) or (ii) Performance Security should be 5% of annualized value of contract amount (for long terms contract i.e. for a period exceeding 5 years) and should be submitted within 21 days of issue of LOA by the successful bidder in any of the form given below: A Bank Guarantee in the form given in the bid document from any scheduled Bank. The BG issued by outstation bank shall be operative at its local branch at ------or branch at----- Govt. Securities, FDR (Scheduled Bank) or any other form of deposit Stipulated by the owner. The BG issued by outstation bank shall be operative at its local branch at ------or branch at----- Govt. Securities, FDR (Scheduled Bank) or any other form of deposit Stipulated by the owner. Demand Draft drawn in favour of …................on any Scheduled Bank payable at its Branch at …..... The Earnest Money/Bid Security deposited is to be returned to the contractor after submission of performance security. The Earnest Money/Bid Security deposited may be adjusted against the security deposit (Performance Security) at Bidder's choice. If performance security is provided by the Successful bidder in the form of bank guarantee it shall be issued either- (a) at Bidder's option by a Scheduled Bank or (b) by a foreign bank located in India and acceptable to the employer. 9. Clause 4.2 of General Terms and Conditions of contract reads as follows : “4.2 Performance Security (first part of security deposit) should be 3% of annualized value of contract amount or contract value whichever is lower (For contract having period up to 5 years) or 5% of annualized value of contract amount (for long terms contracts i.e. for a period exceeding 5 years and should be submitted within 21 days of issue of LOA by the successful bidder in any of the form given below: A Bank Guarantee in the form given in the bid document from any scheduled Bank. The BG issued by outstation bank shall be operative at its local branch at …...or branch at.......” 10. Clauses as mentioned above talks about Bank Guarantee from any Scheduled Bank at bidders option. It is not in dispute that Scheduled Bank means Banks forming part of list maintained by Reserve Bank of India, which includes list of Scheduled Commercial Banks, i.e., list of Scheduled Public Sector Banks, list of Scheduled Private Sector Banks, list of Scheduled Small Finance Banks, list of Scheduled Payment Banks, list of Scheduled Regional Rural Banks and list of Scheduled Foreign Banks in India. List of Scheduled Banks is filed by petitioner as Annexure P/9. 11. Perusal of list of Scheduled Foreign Banks in India would show that name of EMERIO BANQUE Ltd., of which petitioner has submitted Bank Guarantee (after prescribed period of 21 days), does not find place. List of Scheduled Banks is filed by petitioner as Annexure P/9. 11. Perusal of list of Scheduled Foreign Banks in India would show that name of EMERIO BANQUE Ltd., of which petitioner has submitted Bank Guarantee (after prescribed period of 21 days), does not find place. After submission of Bank Guarantee by the petitioner, respondents immediately intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure P/10) that Foreign Bank, of which Bank Guarantee was submitted was not in the list of Scheduled Foreign Bank in India, as per list of Reserve Bank of India and further enclosed list of Scheduled Banks under Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner was intimated that he is required to submit Bank Guarantee towards furnishing performance security till 11.10.2021 subject to approval of CIL. Draft of Bank Guarantee for PSD is also enclosed along with list of Scheduled Banks. 12. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that clause 24 of Instructions to Bidders provides for an option for submission of Bank Guarantee issued by Scheduled Banks or Foreign Banks located in India and Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner being of a Foreign Bank is in accordance with terms of the tender document is not acceptable in view of the specific words used under clause 24.1(i)(b). 13. Clause 24.1(i)(b) of Instructions to Bidders clarifies the Foreign Banks located in India “to be acceptable to the employer”. The words used in aforementioned clause “to be acceptable to the employer” is with some purpose and only with an intent that the employer should be satisfied with the credential of the non-scheduled Bank, of which tenderer has submitted the Bank Guarantee. 14. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondents have intimated the petitioner on 07.10.2021 that Bank, of which Bank Guarantee was submitted is not acceptable and further provided list of Scheduled Banks including Foreign Banks, of which Bank Guarantee is acceptable. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondents have not given sufficient time to produce required Bank Guarantee from list of Scheduled Banks. Even after intimating the petitioner that the Bank Guarantee submitted was not acceptable and further specifying the period for submitting the Bank Guarantee as prescribed under Clause 24.1 of the instructions to Bidders, the petitioner failed to submit required Bank Guarantee. Even after intimating the petitioner that the Bank Guarantee submitted was not acceptable and further specifying the period for submitting the Bank Guarantee as prescribed under Clause 24.1 of the instructions to Bidders, the petitioner failed to submit required Bank Guarantee. Respondents-SECL is a separate company under CIL, and therefore, even if, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is taken to be correct that any other coal company has accepted Bank Guarantee from non scheduled Foreign Bank (EUROPA BANK) the same will not be binding upon the respondents. Here, in the instant case, respondents issued tender notification mentioning terms and conditions, and therefore, as per clause 24.1 of Instructions to Bidders and clause 4.2 of General Terms and Conditions, Bank Guarantee submitted of a Foreign Bank must be to the acceptance of respondents/SECL. 15. In case of Jagdish Mandal (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, consideration before Hon’ble Supreme court is whether the decision of non-acceptance of the EMD of the lowest tenderer with evidently low rate and awarding the work to L-2 bidder is proper. In the said judgment, Hon’ble Court held thus : “33. ……………. If the committee found that the tender of fifth respondent should be rejected on that ground, the said decision cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. The committee has applied its mind and rejected the tender by assigning a reason which is neither irrational nor arbitrary. Neither the High Court nor this Court can sit in appeal over such technical assessment. There is no infirmity in the decision making process or the decision.” 16. In case of Tata Cellular (supra), Hon’ble Supreme court has laid down the principles, on which power of judicial review can be exercised. It was held thus : “77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. Abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. Abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesday unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, "consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention.” 17. In the case at hand, there is specific clause under Instructions to Bidders specifying that Bank Guarantee in the form of Bank Draft by a Foreign bank located in India and acceptable to the employer. The Foreign Bank of which the Bank Guarantee was submitted is not Scheduled Foreign Bank. Non acceptability of the Bank Guarantee to the employer was disclosed to the petitioner and further granted additional time to submit acceptable Bank Guarantee. In view of above, we do not find any arbitrariness in the decision making process of the respondent. 18. We are of the view that there is no arbitrariness on the part of respondents in holding that petitioner failed to comply with terms and conditions of tender document after issuance of LOI. 19. Next question for consideration before this Court is whether, proceedings initiated by respondents is in accordance with law following principles of natural justice. Issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner dated 18.10.2021 is not in dispute as copy of showcause notice is filed along with writ petition as Annexure P/14, to which petitioner also submitted its reply. 20. 19. Next question for consideration before this Court is whether, proceedings initiated by respondents is in accordance with law following principles of natural justice. Issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner dated 18.10.2021 is not in dispute as copy of showcause notice is filed along with writ petition as Annexure P/14, to which petitioner also submitted its reply. 20. Perusal of show-cause notice would show that petitioner was asked to submit a written explanation within a period of seven days mentioning clause 4.2(b) of General Terms and Conditions. Relevant portion of show-cause notice is extracted below for ready reference : “Vide letter No. SECL:GM:DA:Sectt: 2021:1713 dated 06.09.2021 by GM, Dipka Area and 1st reminder letter No. SECL:GM:DA:SO(Mining) 2021:528 dated 18.09.201 by GM(Oprn)/SO(Mining), Dipka Area, 2nd reminder letter no. SECL:GM:DA:SO(Mining) 2021:541 dated 24.09.2021 by GM (Oprn)/SO (Mining), 3rd reminder letter no. SECL:GM:DA:SO (Mining)2021:557 dated 29/09/2021 by GM(Oprn)/SO(Mining), Dipka Area you were advised to deposit PSD within 21 days of issuance of LOI and report for start of work to GM (Mining), Dipka Expansion Project. Vide letter No.SECL:DA:SO(M):2021:569 Dated 07/10/2021 it was instructed to you to submit BG from a scheduled bank as scheduled in the list of RBI on or before 11.10.2021 subject to approval of CIL, COFD. Vide letter no. SECL:DA:SO(M):2021:592 Dated 14/10/2021 you were intimated that you have not deposited PSD within due date in accordance with the provisions of tender document and your case will be dealt in accordance with the relevant clause of terms and condition of the NIT. You are hereby advised to submit a written explanation within 7 days of the receipt of this letter as to why, as per clause No.4.2(b) of General terms and Conditions of the contract which reads as under: “In case of successful bidder fails to submit the performance security within the stipulated time then the award of work shall be cancelled with for forfeiture of the bid security/earnest money:” “Additionally the company shall ban such defaulting contractor from participating in future bid in CIL and subsidiaries for a minimum period of 24 months.” “The banning shall be done under the provisions of NIT/e-tender notice with the approval of tender accepting authority”, your tender should not be cancelled & why you should not be debarred from participating in future tenders in SECL. In case no reply is received in specified time it will be assumed that you have nothing to say in your defense.” 21. Perusal of aforementioned contents of show-cause notice would reflect that in show-cause notice, there is specific mention of action to be taken against bidder who failed to submit the performance security within the stipulated time of cancelling of the award of work, banning for a minimum period of 24 months. As there is specific mention of consequential action to be taken against the petitioner of cancellation of award of work and also of banning the petitioner it can not be said that said actions were without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As such principles of natural justice were followed. 22. In tender matters, it is to be seen whether the decision taken by authorities exceeded its power, reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal on authority have reached, biaseness or principles of natural justice followed or not. In the facts of the case as discussed in preceding paragraphs, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of cancellation of LOI, forfeiture of EMD and banning of petitioner for a period of 24 months. 23. So far as the action taken against the petitioner in the impugned order of penalty under clause 9.2(ii) of General Terms and Conditions is concerned, there is no notice to the petitioner for taking such action against him. Respondents have placed on record show-cause notice dated 18.10.2021. Show-cause notice does not mention proposed action to be taken against petitioner of penalty. There was no proper and specific notice for the said action to be taken against petitioner and, hence, the order impugned (Annexure P/1) so far as it relates to imposition of penalty of Rs.31,38,12,832.28 (Rupees Thirty One Crore Thirty Eight Lakh Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Two and Paise Twenty Eight only), is beyond the contents of show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. 24. It is settled law that no action can be taken against anyone by surprise. Absence of specific mention of proposed action to be taken against the petitioner of imposing penalty and its recovery, deprived him of pleading defense in reply to the show cause notice on the said action. 24. It is settled law that no action can be taken against anyone by surprise. Absence of specific mention of proposed action to be taken against the petitioner of imposing penalty and its recovery, deprived him of pleading defense in reply to the show cause notice on the said action. The action of respondents of imposing penalty and its recovery though forming part of terms and conditions of tender document, but without notice, is in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, in the opinion of this Court, it is not sustainable. 25. In case of UMC Technologies Private LImited (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus : “13. …...The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, U.P., Lucknow and Another, (1980) 3 SCC 1 , has held that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the notice to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 26. The case law relied upon by the respondent of State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust (supra) is distinguishable on facts. It was a case of granting admission in professional college by Trust under some arrangement deed between the Trust and the Chief Minister of the State and the admission was found to be contrary to the law. Case law of Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd. (supra) was a dispute of deduction of sales tax from the payment due to the contractor, hence it is on different sets of fact. In case law of Kurien E. Kalathil and other (supra), the dispute was with regard to interpretation of the terms and conditions of contract. In case law Vardan Linkers & Others (supra) relied by counsel for the respondent dispute was of cancelling the order by Secretary. In case law of Kurien E. Kalathil and other (supra), the dispute was with regard to interpretation of the terms and conditions of contract. In case law Vardan Linkers & Others (supra) relied by counsel for the respondent dispute was of cancelling the order by Secretary. Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing the issue, was of the view that unless the writ Court found the Secretary’s order to be arbitrary or unreasonable it should have desisted. In the case at hand, the order of penalty is without specific show cause notice. 27. As discussed above, respondents have imposed huge amount of penalty without issuing show-cause notice, in violation of principles of natural justice. Considering dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Gorkha Security Services (supra) and UMC Technologies Private Limited (supra), we are of the view that order Annexure P/1 to the extent of imposing penalty of Rs.31,38,12,832.28 (Rupees Thirty One Crore Thirty Eight Lakh Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Two and Paise Twenty Eight only) is not sustainable and it is hereby quashed. This is without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to proceed with further steps in this regard by issuing a proper notice calling for explanation and to pass order afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard. The other part of the order Annexure P/1 is not interfered with. 28. The writ petition is allowed in part to the extent as indicated above.