JUDGMENT : 1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work due to strike. 2. The petitioner, which is a proprietorship Firm, engaged in the business of transportation and supply of food grains and other allied activities, has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, through its Proprietor, claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition for writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ / order or directions to the effect that:- i) The order dated 27.07.2018 (Annex.-11) may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) If any amount is recovered pursuant to the bank guarantee and performance security, the respondent be directed to refund the same. iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner firm. iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner firm.” 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, upon the bids having been invited by the respondents for awarding a contract (having tender value of Rs.1,95,49,692/-) for transportation of sugar and wheat in various areas of Sirohi District, the petitioner-Firm being desirous and eligible, participated in the bidding process; being the highest bidder in the bidding process, the petitioner-Firm was awarded the said contract for a period of one year, and as required, the petitioner-Firm furnished a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.10,57,000/-and other security in a sum of Rs.9,77,485/-. 3.1 In pursuance of the same, vide letter dated 25.04.2018, the petitioner-Firm was called upon to execute an agreement with the respondents, wherein it was provided and agreed upon that during the contract period, the transporter (petitioner-Firm) shall furnish all the information of the food grains and sugar, as supplied to the Fair Price Shops, to the prescribed authority of the respondent-Rajasthan State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. 3.1.1 It was also agreed upon that after collecting the food grains and sugar from the godown of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), if the same are not supplied to the Fair Price Shops, the transporter shall be required to store the said food grains and sugar in the godown, as certified by the respondent authorities, and that the godown shall be operated through two keys, out of which one shall be kept by the contractor (petitioner-Firm), while the other shall remain in possession of the officer authorized by the respondent authorities in that regard, so as to restrain unilateral access to the food grains and sugar being kept in the godown. 3.2 The petitioner-Firm, in pursuance of the said contract, commenced the work. However, a notice dated 05.07.2018 was received by the petitioner-Firm on 11.07.2018 issued by the respondent No.3, stating therein that the petitioner-Firm was called on various occasions to hand over possession of the godown, so as to allow the necessary inspection by the officers/officials of the respondents, but the petitioner-Firm did not respond, and therefore, on 04.07.2018, the locks of the godown were broken down and inspection was conducted thereat; whereupon it was found that the quantity of the wheat is 541 quintals, whereas, according to the stock register, the same must have been 888.565 quintals; it was also mentioned in the said notice that in case the petitioner fails to reply the said notice, an FIR would be registered against the petitioner-Firm. The aforementioned notice was immediately replied by the petitioner, denying the allegations levelled in the said notice. 3.2.1 The petitioner also filed a police complaint at Pindwara Police Station against the then Civil Supplies Manager, on count, amongst others, in regard to breaking down the locks of the godown and illegally transporting the wheat; whereupon immediately, the respondent authorities initiated an enquiry and uponon conclusion thereof, the erring officials were ordered to be kept under suspension. 3.3 However, on 13.07.2018, the then Civil Supplies Officer lodged an FIR against the petitioner, which, as per the petitioner, is still pending investigation. 3.4 On 23.07.2018, another notice was served upon the petitioner mentioning therein certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner-Firm, in execution of the contract in question; the said notice was replied by the petitioner on 26.07.2018 denying the contents of the said notice. 3.5. 3.4 On 23.07.2018, another notice was served upon the petitioner mentioning therein certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner-Firm, in execution of the contract in question; the said notice was replied by the petitioner on 26.07.2018 denying the contents of the said notice. 3.5. However, the Manager, Civil Supplies Department, Sirohi issued an order dated 27.07.2018 to the petitioner communicating the petitioner-Firm that on the count, amongst others, that upon conclusion of the enquiry by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pindwara, the petitioner-Firm was found guilty of disposing off the wheat and furnishing of a forged rent deed of the godown, and thus, the contract awarded to the petitioner-Firm stood terminated, while forfeiting the security/bank guarantee, as furnished by the petitioner, in regard to such contract. Hence, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for the aforequoted reliefs. 4. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Rawal (Proprietor of the petitioner-Firm) present in person submitted that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned, amongst others, that the petitioner-Firm failed to furnish satisfactory response to the various notices furnished by the respondent authorities pointing out various irregularities in execution of the contract in question; the same is apparently incorrect, as the petitioner-Firm furnished reply to the notices, while denying the allegations levelled therein on sufficient grounds. 4.1 He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents, without any prior notice in regard thereto and without affording an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and thus, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. 4.2 He also submitted that it is only after realizing the blunder being committed by the officials/officers of the respondents in breaking down the locks of the godown behind the back of the petitioner, that the aforementioned FIR was lodged by the then Civil Supplies Manager on 13.07.2018; despite the fact that in pursuance of the police complaint being filed by the petitioner, in regard to breaking down of the locks of the godown and unilateral inspection of the godown on 04.07.2018, the respondent authorities, upon enquiry, passed an order suspending the services of the erring officials. 4.2.1 He further submitted that the respondent authorities, despite the fact that the FIR dated 13.07.2018 lodged by the respondents, in regard to the alleged irregularities in execution of the contract by the petitioner, is still pending investigation, the respondents issued the aforementioned notice dated 23.07.2018, alleging various irregularities on the part of the petitioner-Firm; such notice was replied by the petitioner-Firm on 26.07.2018, specifically stating therein that the petitioner-Firm continuously provided the requisite information regarding supply of food grains, and that, all the record in respect thereof was in possession of certain employees of the respondent-Corporation. 4.3 He also submitted that the respondents themselves have acted in utter violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement by breaking down the locks of the godown and unilaterally conducting the inspection, in the absence of the proprietor/authorized representative of the petitioner-Firm. 4.4 He further submitted that had it been a case that the impugned order was passed, due to the circumstances that compelled the respondents to break down the locks of the godown, so as enable them to conduct the necessary inspection thereof, the respondent authorities ought to have issued prior notice to the petitioner-Firm in that regard; as per the petitioner, the same was not done at any point of time. 4.5 He thus submitted that the aforementioned backdrop clearly reveals that the impugned action had been taken by the respondents just to cover up the illegalities committed by their own officers/officials, that too, without waiting for the conclusion of the investigation into the FIR lodged by themselves; hence, the impugned action of the respondents is nothing, but an arbitrary exercise of power and authority, while committing flagrant violation, amongst others, of the principles of natural justice. 5. Heard as well as perused the record of the case. 6. In the given factual matrix, this Court finds that the matter pertains to irregularities in civil supplies, which is an issue concerning the public at large. 6.1 The issues, as raised by the respondents, with regard to the irregularities and misappropriation in question in execution of the contract by the petitioner, are subject matter of the FIR lodged by the respondents on 13.07.2018 before the Police Station, Pindwara, District Sirohi, which as per the petitioner-Firm itself, is still pending investigation. 7. 6.1 The issues, as raised by the respondents, with regard to the irregularities and misappropriation in question in execution of the contract by the petitioner, are subject matter of the FIR lodged by the respondents on 13.07.2018 before the Police Station, Pindwara, District Sirohi, which as per the petitioner-Firm itself, is still pending investigation. 7. Thus, in these circumstances, unless the final conclusion report in regard to the said FIR is submitted before the competent court by the concerned investigating agency, it would not be appropriate for this Court to delve into the merits of the case and enter into a fact finding enquiry; as, if the same is done, it may affect and influence the ongoing investigation into the FIR in the present matter, which is not permissible under the law. Moreover, in case the petitioner wishes to bring certain documents on record, in regard to the issues raised in the FIR lodged by the respondents, the petitioner may furnish the same before the concerned investigating authority, as the investigation into the said FIR, as per the petitioner-Firm itself, is still pending. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. However, after filing of the final conclusion report, pertaining to the FIR lodged by the respondents against the petitioner, by the concerned investigating agency before the competent court, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse, as available under the law. 9. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.