JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 22nd January, 2015 passed in W.P. (C) Nos. 6141 of 2014, 6129 of 2014, W.P. (C) No. 6130 of 2014 and 2nd March, 2015 passed in W.P. (C) No. 97 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder the writ petitions have been dismissed refusing to interfere with the order as contained in memos dated 20th October, 2014 and 13th November, 2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, whereby and whereunder, the liability has been casted upon the appellants for deposit of amount of Rs. 1,25,52,242.04/- and Rs. 1,16,36,382.06/- (L.P.A. No. 133 of 2015); Rs. 1,48,13,594.28/- (L.P.A. No. 134 of 2015); Rs. 1,31,47,924.32 (L.P.A. No. 135 of 2015); Rs. 10,02,837.96 (L.P.A. No. 346 of 2015). 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the present appeal which requires to be enumerated, reads hereunder as. 3. The respondents issued a tender notice dated 22nd February, 2011 inviting application for grant of exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of country liquor to the retail licensees/Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited for the period 1st April, 2011 to 31st March, 2014. 4. In pursuance to the aforesaid N.I.T., the writ-petitioner(s) and others submitted their tenders. In the financial bid, the tenderers including the writ-petitioner(s) quoted their rates keeping in mind the rate of rectified spirit in the month of March, 2011 which was at the rate of Rs. 26.98 per bulk litre. However, the decision with regard to finalization and award of exclusive privilege was unduly delayed for over a year on account of pending litigation before this Court challenging the NIT. The writ petition(s) was ultimately dismissed vide judgment dated 3rd April, 2012 passed in L.P.A. No. 309 of 2011, whereby the writ-petitioners were allotted different zone for manufacture and supply of country liquor by order dated 28th April, 2012 for the period from 1st July, 2012 to 31st March, 2014. Consequential license was also issued to the writ petitioner in Form prescribed under the act. 5. The rates so determined by the Board of Revenue were incorporated in the Letter of Grant issued in favour of the writ petitioner. Consequential license was also issued to the writ petitioner in Form prescribed under the act. 5. The rates so determined by the Board of Revenue were incorporated in the Letter of Grant issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner believed that since the rates have been finalized more than one year after the rates were quoted, the rates have proportionally been determined in view of the enhanced price of rectified spirit and other input cost without taking into account the proposed cost of hologram as the government had not decided to affix hologram on country liquor bottles/sachets. 6. After expiry of the period of grant, without any show cause notice, writ-petitioners were served with the demand notice dated 20th October, 2014 and 13th November, 2014 directing them to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,25,52,242.04/- and Rs. 1,16,36,382.06/-; Rs. 1,48,13,594.28/-; 1,31,47,924.32/- and; Rs. 10,02,837.96/- allegedly to be recovered by the writ-petitioners under the head of hologram item at the rate of Rs. 0.18 paise on country liquor supplied to the Corporation and to the retail licensees in different Zone failing which the Bank guarantee furnished by the writ-petitioners shall be revoked. 7. The writ-petitioners immediately responded to the aforesaid demand notice vide its letter dated 27th October, 2014 stating that the said demand notice has been issued without initiating any proceeding and is thus violative of principles of natural justice. The writ petitioners, accordingly, requested that the demand notice may be recalled and a proper proceeding in accordance with law be initiated. 8. It is the case of the writ-petitioners that the aforesaid notice inviting tender as appended as Annexure-1 contains the conditions including the condition as under the Clause which is relevant for the purpose of consideration of the issue of the lis. The condition stipulated under Clause provides that specification of the bottles will be determined on the basis of Jharkhand Country Liquor Bottling Rule, 2004 and the specification of Sachet will be in accordance with the Sacheting Rule, 1992. It has further been provided therein that the decision if taken by the Government pertaining to holographic sticker over the bottle/sachet, the same will mandatorily be followed by the contractor concerned. It has further been provided therein that the decision if taken by the Government pertaining to holographic sticker over the bottle/sachet, the same will mandatorily be followed by the contractor concerned. Clause provides that one or the other bidders will have to give information about the cost upon which the country liquor is to be sold out i.e., the same will also include along with the other expenditure incurred on holograph and then only country liquor will be supplied. 9. It is the case of the writ-petitioners that the price was fixed on the basis of its fixation by the Member Board of Revenue on due deliberation in between the parties. Although, while deliberating upon the issue of fixation of price, the reference of price to the extent of Rs. 0.18 paise has been referred to be paid under the head of holographic sticker. 10. The grievance of the writ-petitioner(s) is that although the reflection in the document submitted for getting license of holographic cost to the extent of Rs. 0.18 paise but even though the same has not been recovered from the JSBCL to whom, the country liquor was supplied but calculating the said amount, the liability has been casted upon the writ-petitioners and accordingly by issuance of demand notices dated 20th October, 2014 and 13th November, 2014. The writ-petitioner(s) being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the concerned authority of the State-respondent and the demand notice so issued have approached this Court by filing the writ petitions. The writ-petitions have been dismissed by taking into consideration the specific condition stipulated in the notice inviting tender which contains a condition as under Clause and Clause 11. The learned Single Judge has considered both the provisions together and came to conclusive finding that once the writ-petitioners have participated in the bid on the basis of condition stipulated in the notice inviting tender which means that the condition stipulated in the notice inviting tender has been accepted and, therefore, in pursuance to the condition stipulated in Clause no. , it is the liability of the writ petitioners to make payment of the cost of holographic sticker. The aforesaid orders passed in the writ petition(s) are the subject matter of the instant appeals. 12. Mr. , it is the liability of the writ petitioners to make payment of the cost of holographic sticker. The aforesaid orders passed in the writ petition(s) are the subject matter of the instant appeals. 12. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners has argued by making reference of the provisions of Clause wherein although there is a condition but the said condition, on the day of issuance of license in favour of the writ-petitioners, was not notified pertaining to making payment of the cost of holographic sticker to be contained in bottle/sachet. 13. It has been submitted that since the aforesaid decision has not been taken, therefore, there is no reason of applicability of the condition stipulated under Clause. 14. The argument has been advanced by questioning the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4 to the memo of appeal passed by the Deputy Commissioner Excise (Headquarter), Jharkhand, Ranchi, wherein without providing any opportunity, even though, the amount so required to be deposited under holographic sticker cost has been held to be recovered by the writ-petitioner(s) from the retailer and JSBCL. It has been contended that no such element of cost under holographic head to the extent of Rs. 0.18 paise has been recovered from the retailer of the JSBCL. According to him, since, the Government has not taken decision to that effect in pursuance to the condition stipulated under condition of the Notification dated 22nd February, 2011, there is no reason to make recovery of the said amount from the JSBCL. It has further been contended that if the writ-petitioner(s) would have been given an opportunity to put forth their case before taking such decision and before casting liability upon the writ-petitioner(s), all the facts could have been brought to the notice of authorities concerned but herein, unilateral decision has been taken by the authority concerned as also the liability of a huge amount has been casted upon the writ-petitioner(s) but this aspect of matter has not been considered by the learned Singe Judge and, as such, the matter requires consideration of this Court. 15. Per contra, Mr. 15. Per contra, Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned G.A.-V appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the pretext that there is no infirmity in the impugned decision of the authority concerned as contained in Annexure-4 to the memo of appeal, the decision which was challenged in the writ petitions. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 17. The issue involved in these appeals is regarding the action taken by the authority in taking decision of casting liability upon the writ-petitioner(s) for depositing the amount incurred in holographic sticker as per the Notification dated 22nd February, 2011. 18. The contention has been raised on behalf of the writ-petitioner(s) by referring to the impugned decision of the Deputy Commissioner Excise (Headquarter), Jharkhand, Ranchi that without any basis the liability has been casted on the wrong pretext of recovery said to have been made by the writ-petitioner(s) from the retailer and JSBCL pertaining to the amount of hologram to the extent of 0.18 paise and basis upon which the demand notice has also been issued. While the case of the writ-petitioner(s) is that there is no recovery on the head of holographic sticker and there is no reason to make recovery since the State itself has not come out with decision to that effect as required to be taken in view of the condition stipulated under Clause of the Notification dated 22nd February, 2011. While on the other hand, the argument has been advanced on behalf of the State that the decision which has been taken as per the content contained in the impugned decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise cannot be said to suffer from an error, since, it is the case of the writ-petitioner(s) that they furnished at the time of bid showing the element of cost to be incurred in holographic sticker to the extent of Rs. 0.18 paise, as such, it cannot be said that the such amount has not been recovered by the writ-petitioner(s). 19. The issue of not providing an opportunity of hearing is also one of the grounds having been raised on behalf of the appellants. 0.18 paise, as such, it cannot be said that the such amount has not been recovered by the writ-petitioner(s). 19. The issue of not providing an opportunity of hearing is also one of the grounds having been raised on behalf of the appellants. The specific plea has been taken in this regard as would appear from paragraph 16 of the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 6141 of 2014, wherein, it has been stated that for the first time after expiry of the period of grant, without any show cause notice whatsoever and without initiating any proceeding, it was served with a demand notice dated 20th October, 2014 as contained in memo no. 2159 and 2162 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,25,52,242.04 and Rs. 1,16,36,382.06 allegedly to be recovered by the petitioner under the head of hologram item at the rate of Rs. 0.18 paise on country liquor supplied to the Corporation and to the retail licensees in the Dhanbad and Dumka Zone respectively failing which the bank guarantee furnished by the writ-petitioner shall be revoked. Although it requires to refer herein that no counter affidavit was filed before the learned writ court but even in that circumstances, the fact about the issuance of show cause notice is required to be considered on the basis of the impugned decision of the authority on the basis of the settled proposition of law that if a show-cause notice has been issued, the response if filed, requires consideration and if there is no response even then the reference of the show cause notice is required to be made there by taking note thereof that even in spite of show-cause notice having been issued there is no response and, therefore, the authority is proceeding to take the decision unilaterally. The aforesaid principle is the requirement of the consideration of the fact before taking any adverse decision against the party, against whom the adverse decision is going to be taken. If there is no reference of the show-cause or no consideration of the response filed to the show-cause in the impugned decision taken by the authority, the same will be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 . Paragraph 9 of the said judgment reads as under: 9......Thus, the soul of natural justice is “fair-play in action” and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world. In the United States, the right to an administrative hearing is regarded as essential requirement of fundamental fairness. And in England too it has been held that “fair-play in action” demands that before any prejudicial or adverse action is taken against a person, he must be given an opportunity to be heard...... 20. This Court is now proceeding to examine that even though the pleading to the effect that show-cause notice has not been issued to the writ-petitioner(s), the same according to our considered view finds support from the contents of the decision taken under the impugned orders dated 20th October, 2014 and 13th November, 2014, since, there is no reference of show-cause notice therein, rather the respondent concern has come to conclusion unilaterally that an amount of Rs. 0.18 paise against the holographic sticker element since has been recovered by the writ-petitioner(s) from the retail sellers and JSBCL, as such, the assessment of recovery being made by the writ-petitioner(s) to the tune of Rs. amount of Rs. 1,25,52,242.04/- and Rs. 1,16,36,382.06/- (L.P.A. No. 133 of 2015); Rs. 1,48,13,594.28/- (L.P.A. No. 134 of 2015); Rs. 1,31,47,924.32 (L.P.A. No. 135 of 2015); Rs. 10,02,837.96 (L.P.A. No. 346 of 2015) and in consequence thereof, the writ-petitioner(s) has been directed to deposit the aforesaid amount in the treasury within the specific time. 21. The aforesaid decision has been followed by the demand notice dated 20th October, 2014 and 13th November, 2014. The specific case has been made out by the writ-petitioner(s) as would appear from the pleading made in the writ petition(s) that they have not recovered amount under the holographic sticker head since, from the retail sellers and JSBCL, the decision to that effect has not been taken in the light of the condition stipulated under of the sell notification. The order passed by the concerned authority reflects that the liability has been casted on the pretext that such amount has been recovered by the writ-petitioner(s) from the retail seller and the JSBCL under the holographic sticker head but prior to coming to such conclusion the writ-petitioner(s) has not been provided an opportunity to defend. 22. The order passed by the concerned authority reflects that the liability has been casted on the pretext that such amount has been recovered by the writ-petitioner(s) from the retail seller and the JSBCL under the holographic sticker head but prior to coming to such conclusion the writ-petitioner(s) has not been provided an opportunity to defend. 22. The position of law is well settled that any adverse decision has been taken, the cardinal principles of natural justice is required to be followed as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi (Supra). 23. This Court, after having discussed the fact in entirety as above and considering the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, finds therefrom that the learned Single Judge has made reference of the condition as stipulated under but there is no finding as to whether the Government has taken any decision to that effect requiring to deposit the cost of holographic sticker. Further, the learned Single Judge has not examined the issue of alleged recovery made by the writ-petitioner(s) from the retail seller and the JSBCL, since, the specific pleading has been made on behalf of the writ-petitioner(s) that he has not recovered and there is no reason to recover such amount in absence of any decision taken by the Government, in view of the condition stipulated under . Further, the learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the issue having been raised on behalf of the writ-petitioner(s) that the liability has been casted upon the writ petitioner(s) without providing an opportunity, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge based upon the reasoning hereinabove coupled with the settled position of law as per the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference. 24. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 22nd January, 2015 passed in W.P. (C) Nos. 6141 of 2014, 6129 of 2014, W.P. (C) No. 6130 of 2014 and 2nd March, 2015 passed in W.P. (C) No. 97 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge as also the demand notice as contained in memos dated 20th October, 2014 and 13th November, 2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise are, hereby, quashed and set aside. 25. In view thereof, the instant appeals are allowed, accordingly, stand disposed of. 26. 25. In view thereof, the instant appeals are allowed, accordingly, stand disposed of. 26. In the result, the matter is remitted before the Commissioner Excise, Jharkhand, Ranchi to issue notice to the individual writ-petitioner giving therein specific details of the liability within a period of three weeks on the present and correct address of the writ-petitioner(s) from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ-petitioner(s) are directed to submit their response within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the show-cause. The Commissioner Excise, Jharkhand, Ranchi is directed to decide the issue preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of response by or on behalf of the writ-petitioner(s). 27. Needless to say that if the decision will be taken in favour of the writ-petitioner(s), the amount, if recovered, will be refunded or adjusted. In case of any adverse decision, the same be communicated to the writ-petitioner(s) forthwith. 28. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.