ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited, appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under : “…to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings issued by the Respondent No.2 vide Ref. No.CRP/CMC/E1414O0290/6051 dated 09.12.2014 forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) invoking the condition No.2.2.c(v) of NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) conditions and the consequential proceedings No.CRP/CMC/E 1414O0290/6277 dated 22.12.2014 rejecting the representation dated 17.12.2014 submitted by petitioner as per the terms and conditions of NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from the provisions of Contract Act 1872 and consequently direct the Respondents to return the Earnest Money Deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and pass such further or other orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is that the petitioner is a partnership firm registered in the style of i.e., M/s. Sri Balaji Associates, H.No.140, Hanuman Basthi, Bellampally, Adilabad District, comprising of three partners. Subsequently, after mutual agreement between all the partners, 4th partner was included and to the effect a document was executed. While matter stood thus, the Singareni Collieries Company issued a e-tender notice i.e., vide Enquiry No.E1414O0290 dated 11.10.2014 inviting tenders for transportation of Coal from KHA.OCP (Khairagura Open Cast Project) and Dorli.OCP.1 (Dorli Open Case Project-1) and From KHA.OCP to RKP CHP (Khairagura Open Cast Project to (Ramakrishnapuram Coal Handling Project) on weight basis for a period of 2 years. As such, the petitioner firm had filed tender within the time mentioned in the tender enquiry notice. However, during the commercial evaluation, the 2nd respondent had observed that the 4 partners of the Petitioner firm signed on the partnership deed on 24.07.2012 were as the bond paper was purchased on 30.07.2012, therefore the petitioner frim’s tender was rejected. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned letter vide Ref. No.CRP/CMC/E141O0290/6051 dated 09.12.2014 intimating the petitioner firm that the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- has been forfeited. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a representation dated 17.12.2014 before the 2threspondent. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned letter vide Ref. No.CRP/CMC/E141O0290/6051 dated 09.12.2014 intimating the petitioner firm that the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- has been forfeited. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a representation dated 17.12.2014 before the 2threspondent. However, the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No. CRP/CMC/E141O0290/6277 dated 22.12.2014 reiterating the earlier decision passed in proceedings dated 09.12.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. This Court passed interim order in favour of the petitioner on 25.03.2015 in W.P.M.P.No.6817 of 2015 in W.P.No.5113 of 2015 observing as under : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit of the petitioner. Therefore, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to return the Earnest Money Deposit of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order.” PERUSED THE RECORD: 5. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in particular paragraph Nos.7, 9 and 10 of the said counter affidavit are extracted hereunder : “7. It is submitted that the grievance expressed by the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that the mistake is an inadvertent mistake and should be condoned, which is not permissible in the matters relating the contract wherein the bidders were adequately informed regarding the contract terms and conditions to which they should be fully conversant before submitting their bids. The plea raised that the Petitioner had no malafied intention and inadvertently signed on a non-judicial paper is totally incorrect, untrue and hence denied. I submit that these are the facts which need to be adequately proved before the Civil Court to which the Petitioner has to approach as per the conditions laid down in the Notice Inviting Tender. The factual contention that needs to be verified and proved before the Civil Court cannot be agitated in the writ petition as disputed question of fact needs to be proved by leading evidence and unless this exercise is exhausted, the petitioners cannot approach this Hon’ble Court. 9. The factual contention that needs to be verified and proved before the Civil Court cannot be agitated in the writ petition as disputed question of fact needs to be proved by leading evidence and unless this exercise is exhausted, the petitioners cannot approach this Hon’ble Court. 9. I submit that the Petitioner has categorically admitted the incorrect information given by him and wants to get over the same by stating it a discrepancy which is untrue and incorrect and the plea of inadvertency cannot be entertained as the same are specifically stated to get over the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender. 10. The petitioner is making a contention that he should have been given an opportunity to establish his case. It is submitted that before exhausting the remedy available to Civil Court, the Petitioner approaching this Hon’ble Court clearly shows that he has somehow wants to get over the terms and conditions of the NIT and also make out a new contract between the parties which is not permissible in law. It is a straight case where the Petitioner has given a incorrect information and accordingly the Respondent has acted as per terms and conditions which permit the Respondent to forfeit EMD and in case the Petitioner has any grievance, he has to approach the Civil Court but not rush to this Hon’ble Court. More so the contract is a non-statutory contract which is not maintainable under law.” 6. Notice dated 09.12.2014 issued to the petitioner is extracted hereunder : “Sub: Transportation of coal from KHA OCP and Dorli OCP.1 to RKP Washery and from KHA.OCP to RKP CHP on weight basis for a period of 2 years – Reg. Ref: Enquiry No.E1414O0290 dt:11.20.2014. 1. With reference to the above, you have participated in the above enquiry as a partnership firm in the enquiry floated to award the contract for subject work. 2. During the commercial evaluation, it was observed that four partners of the firm signed on partnership deed on 24.07.2012, where as the Bond paper was purchased on 30.07.2012. 3. From the above, it is evident that the four partners of the firm have signed on the partnership deed with a date prior to the date of the purchase of Bond paper which is not correct. This comes under submission of false/incorrect document. 4. 3. From the above, it is evident that the four partners of the firm have signed on the partnership deed with a date prior to the date of the purchase of Bond paper which is not correct. This comes under submission of false/incorrect document. 4. As per commercial terms and conditions 2.2.c(v) of NIT, EMD submitted by the firm will be forfeited when “The information/documents submitted by the bidder proved to be false/incorrect”. 5. In view of the above, it is to inform that the Rs.5,00,000.00 submitted by you towards EMD will be forfeited.” 7. Explanation of the petitioner, dated 17.12.2014 issued in response to the notice, dated 09.12.2014 issued to the petitioner is extracted hereunder : “Sub: Request for Release of EMD of Rs.5,00,000/- Enquiry No.E141400290 – Dt:11.10.14 – Reg. Ref: Your office Lr.No.CRD/CMC/E141400290/6051 - Dt:09.12.2014. We have formed into partnership under the name and style of M/s. /Sri Balaji Associates, Bellampalli with effect 24.04.2012 comprising of 3 partners and have enrolled with registration of firms vide Regd.No.-197/2012 and later on 24.07.2012 on oral agreement we have admitted one more partner on mutual agreement of all the partners and the same was executed on 30.07.2012 and inadvertently on the Non-Judicial stamp paper the date of execution is written as 24.07.2012 and inadvertently on the Non-Judicial stamp paper the date of execution is written as 24.07.2012 instead of 30.07.2012. This was happened by over right and not intentional and have not committed any grave mistake. By going through the above fact we request. You to kindly consider the same and the EMD of Rs.5,00,000/- may kindly be refunded. However we are here with enclosing a statement of affidavit also in support of the same.” 8. The impugned order dated 22.12.2014 issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 is extracted hereunder : “Sub: Transportation of coal from KHA.OCP and Dorli OCP.1 RKP Washery and from KHA.OCP to RKP CHP on weight basis for a period of 2 years – Reg. Ref: 1. Enquiry No.E1414O0290 dt:11.10.2014, 2. Ltr.No.CRP/ CMC/ E1414O0290/ 6051 DT:09.12.2014, 3. Your letter dtd: 17.12.2014. 1. With reference to the enquiry cited at no.1, you have participated as a partnership firm with the four partners. 2. Ref: 1. Enquiry No.E1414O0290 dt:11.10.2014, 2. Ltr.No.CRP/ CMC/ E1414O0290/ 6051 DT:09.12.2014, 3. Your letter dtd: 17.12.2014. 1. With reference to the enquiry cited at no.1, you have participated as a partnership firm with the four partners. 2. As a document submitted towards partnership deed was a false document, vide letter under reference no.2, it was informed that Rs.5,00,000/- submitted by you towards EMD would be forfeited as per terms and conditions of the NIT. 3. Vide letter under reference no.3, you have made a representation to refund the EMD of Rs.5.00 Lakhs by stating that : On 24.04.2012, you have formed in to partnership firm with the 3 members. On 24.07.2012, you have admitted one more partner on mutual agreement of all the partners and the same was executed on 30.07.2012. But, inadvertently on the Non-judicial stamp paper the date of execution was written as 24.07.2012 instead of 30.07.2012 which was happened by over right and not intentional. In support of this, you have submitted an affidavit attested by notary. 4. In view of the above, it is to inform that the representation submitted by you is not considered by keeping in view of provisions of NIT and Rs.5,00,000.00 submitted by you towards EMD is here by forfeited.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner had not been provided an opportunity of personal hearing prior to issuance of the impugned notice dated 09.12.2014 by the 2nd respondent. Since a bare perusal of the impugned notice dated 09.12.2014 issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 herein clearly indicates that it is not a notice issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, but it is a decision itself informing the petitioner that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- submitted by the petitioner towards EMD would be forfeited. A bare perusal of the consequential impugned order dated 22.12.2014 clearly indicates that the representation of the petitioner dated 17.12.2014 had not been considered at all by respondent No.2. 10. Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 fairly submits that the matter could be remitted to respondent No.2 for the purpose of providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put– forth the petitioner’s case for release of EMD of Rs.5,00,000/- with held by respondent No.2 herein. 11. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and duly considering that no person can be condemned unheard which clearly is in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court opines that the impugned order dated 22.12.2014 needs to be set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent No.2 to reconsider the petitioner‘s request for release of EMD of Rs.5,00,000/- with held by the respondent No.2, in accordance to law, inconformity with the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in view of the fact as borne on record that though the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents at paragraph No.10 referred to the specific plea of the petitioner that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to establish petitioner’s case, the counter however is curiously silent in answering the petitioner’s said plea and hence it is evident that the petitioner admittedly was not heard prior to informing the petitioner vide notice dated 09.12.2014 that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- submitted by the petitioner towards EMD would be forfeited. 12. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40 in “UMA NATH PANDEY & OTEHRS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER” at para Nos. 10 & 11 observed as under : “Para 10: The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram parte rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the “Manga Carta”. The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to “vocate, interrogate and adjudicate”. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: (ER p.420). “Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. ‘Adam’ (says God), ‘where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I command thee that thou shouldest not eat”. Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. Para 11 : “Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice”. 13. In "MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., reported in (2004) 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that the principles of natural justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent in that regard. In other words, a statutory silence should be taken to imply the need to observe the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.453-54, para 10) observed as under : "10. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder there could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected, by the orders that may be passed, and making it a requirement to follow a fair procedure before taking a decision, unless the statute provides otherwise. The principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi-judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They are a means to an end and not an end in themselves." 14. Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 further submits that the proceedings dated 09.12.2014 issued to the petitioner could be directed to be treated as show-cause notice issued to the petitioner and the petitioner could be directed to submit his explanation to the said notice dated 09.12.2014 and the same would be considered by the respondents in accordance to law, within a reasonable period in conformity with principles of natural justice. 15. Taking into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The submissions put-forth by the Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 15. Taking into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The submissions put-forth by the Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. (c) Duly considering the averments made in counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) (d) The law and the view laid down by the Apex Court in the Judgments (referred to and extracted above) (i) “UMANATH PANDEY & OTEHRS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER” reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40 (ii) MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., reported in (2004) 2 SCC page 447. (e) The interim order of this Court dated 25.03.2015, directing the respondents to return the Earnest Money deposit of the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which is in force as on date (referred to and extracted above), The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order vide proceedings No.CRP/CMC/E1414O0290/6277 dated 22.12.2014, is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2, by treating the notice dated 09.12.2014 issued to the petitioner as a show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation afresh to the said Notice dated 09.12.2014 within two (02) weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, and upon receipt of the said explanation the respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for release of EMD of Rs.5,00,000/- with held by respondent No.2 herein by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner duly considering the explanation to be submitted afresh by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter in accordance to law in conformity with the principles of natural justice and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.