Order : (Bibhu Datta Guru, J.) 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the show cause notice and entire exercise being an eye wash exercise as the superior authority has already directed the authority dealing with show cause notice to pass particular order and impose particular penalty. 2. (a) Case of the petitioner, as discernible from the pleadings of the petitions, is that pursuant to the NIT issued by the respondent No.4 the petitioners submitted bid along with necessary documents including the experience certificate of respondent No.5 M/s Vijay V Salunke of Pune, who is associated with the petitioners under a joint venture agreement and is having experience of particular type of tender work. In the said tender process, the petitioners came out as successful bidder and accordingly agreement was entered into between the parties and the work order has been issued in favour of the petitioners. (b) After issuance of work order it has been came to the knowledge of the respondent authorities that the respondent No.5 was not having such experience or eligibility, which was submitted at the time of NIT and for which a show cause notice dated 5-9- 2024 issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.4 Executive Engineer & Member Secretary, District Water & Sanitation Mission, stating that as to why the tender will not be cancelled and security amount not to be forfeited. On receipt of the show cause notice the petitioner submitted his reply and denied each and every adverse allegation made in the show cause notice. (c) After submission of reply the petitioner came to know that the respondent No.2 Member Secretary, State Water and Sanitation Mission (Apex Committee), Public Health Engineering, in its meeting dated 17-2-2025 under Agenda No.13 has issued direction to the authorities dealing with the show cause notice issued to the petitioner in connection with experience certificate of respondent No.5 filed by the petitioner along with the tender document to cancel the tender where such type of experience certificate has been annexed which was found to be forged and also recommended to take penal action against the bidder who has produced such forged experience certificate. Even the respondent No.1 Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Public Health Engineering has also directed the authorities below that in cases wherever the certificate relating to respondent No.5 is submitted necessary steps be drawn to cancel the tender as resolved under Agenda No.13 and further a direction has been issued that in respect of tenders regarding which work order has been issued after acceptance of bid, the same shall not only be cancelled but the persons concerned be also held responsible for penal action. Respondent No.3 Mission Director, Jal Jeevan Mission, also issued the same direction. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as the higher authorities have directed the respondent No.4, who has issued the show cause notice and before whom the reply has been submitted by the petitioner has been left with no discretion to decide the matter by applying his mind, as the respondent No.4 has been directed in categorical terms to act in a particular manner. Thus, the said action is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. He further submit that once the higher authority has taken a decision to cancel the tender/bid/ work order and to take penal action against the petitioner and directed the respondent No.4 to take action in a particular manner then the respondent No.4 cannot consider and apply his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice. If any decision will be taken by respondent No.4 that will be against the principles of natural justice. Even the entire action i.e. starting from show cause notice to the decision will be void. In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Assessment) v Surendra Kumar Jain (Dead) through legal heirs Smt. Poonam Jain and Ms Geetika Jain, [2025] 472 ITR 346 (Chhattisgarh). 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, would submit that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has not annexed the tender document/agreement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, would submit that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has not annexed the tender document/agreement. In fact, the decision has been taken by the higher authorities on the basis of tender document/agreement only wherein the penal action has been provided, which has not been disclosed by the petitioner and the petitioner is knowing about the penal action in case of submission of forged documents in a tender process and the higher authority has only reiterated what has been mentioned in the tender documents/agreement executed between the parties. Though the decision has been taken, but still the respondent No.4 is in a position to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner pursuance to the show cause notice. In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Uttarakhand High Court in the matter of Jai Gopal Associates v State of Uttarakhand and Others, AIR OnLine 2019 UTR 493 and submit that in case of any fraud and fabricating documents submitted by partners of joint venture blacklisting of contractor by forfeiting security deposit should not be interfered. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 6. It is a case where the petitioner has placed the experience certificate of respondent No.5 along with his tender document to fulfill the eligibility criteria of the tender process. After issuance of work order it was came to the knowledge of the authorities that the experience certificate of respondent No.5 submitted by the petitioner was a forged one for which the said certificate was verified from the issuing authority vide communication dated 18-6- 2024 i.e. Chief Officer, Karad Nagar Parishad, Karad, District Satara (Maharashtra). Pursuance to the said communication the Executive Engineer, Karad Nagar Parishad sent a reply dated 6-7- 2024 and stated that the experience certificate alleged to have been issued to the respondent No.5 bearing No.844/2020 dated 25-6-2020 and 845/2020 dated 25-6-2020 have never issued by the said Nagar Parishad. After receipt of the aforesaid communication dated 6-7-2024, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted its reply. 7. After receipt of the aforesaid communication dated 6-7-2024, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted its reply. 7. The present petitions have been filed by taking a ground that the respondent No.2 in its meeting dated 17-2-2025 under Agenda No.13 has issued direction to the authority dealing with the show cause notice to the petitioner in connection with the experience certificate of respondent No.5 filed by the petitioner along with tender documents for cancellation of tender and to take penal action against the petitioner. Further the respondent No.1 has also directed to all the authorities that in cases wherever the certificate relating to respondent No.5 is submitted necessary steps be drawn to cancel the tender as resolved under Agenda No.13 and further a direction has been issued that in respect of tenders regarding which work order has been issued after acceptance of bid, the same shall not only be cancelled but the persons concerned be also held responsible for penal action. Even the respondent No.3 vide its letter dated 20-2-2025 directed the concerned authority, who is holding the charge of conducting enquiry against the bidders to act in a particular manner. 8. As far as the fact regarding forged experience certificate of respondent No.5 submitted by the petitioner along with tender documents is concerned, the concerned issuing authority of experience certificate i.e. Karad Nagar Parishad has clarified that such certificate has not been issued by them in favour of the respondent No.5 and on the basis of said fact the show cause notice has been issued by the respondent No.4. The fact remains that the reply has been submitted by the petitioner, however, the petitioner is apprehending that the respondent No.4 may not apply his mind individually and judiciously because of directions issued by the higher authorities as has been stated above. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Assessment) (supra) held thus at paras 32, 35, 36, 37, 40 & 44 : 32. In democracy like us every authority may, however, high should only function within the four corners of law because the rule of law requires that all the machinery of State must function according to mandate of statute. The democracy requires the rule of law in State must be protected from becoming rule of man. 35. In democracy like us every authority may, however, high should only function within the four corners of law because the rule of law requires that all the machinery of State must function according to mandate of statute. The democracy requires the rule of law in State must be protected from becoming rule of man. 35. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of W.B. v. Vishnunarayan & Associates (P) Ltd., (2002) 4 SCC 134 , held that executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision of law, which authorises their acts. 10. It is the settled position of law that the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision of law, which authorises their acts. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Bishan Das v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1961 SC 1570 : (1962) 2 SCR 69 ] held that the State or its executive officers did not have any right to take law into their own hands and remove a person by an executive order. The Court further observed: (SCR p. 80) “Before we part with this case, we feel it our duty to say that executive action taken in this case by the State and its officers is destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law.” 36. However it is equally true that when the authority is vested with the power it has duty to exercise it and adherence to said rule is important facet to administration of justice. The Revenue raised the argument that effective functioning of the revenue department requires coordination monitoring and superintendence. However what required to be seen is that General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner the principle has been recognised by the Supreme Court in Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh (supra), held thus at para 55 : 55. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner the principle has been recognised by the Supreme Court in Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh (supra), held thus at para 55 : 55. It is true that in exercise of powers of revoking or cancelling the permission is akin to and partakes of a quasi-judicial complexion and that in exercising of the former power the authority must bring to bear an unbiased mind, consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party and decide the matter consistent with the principles of natural justice. The authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then not be the authority's discretion that is exercised, but someone else's. If an authority “hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra vires”. Such an interference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority. De Smith sums up the position thus: “The relevant principles formulated by the courts may be broadly summarised as follows. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. In general, a discretion must be exercised only by the authority to which it is committed. That authority must genuinely address itself to the matter before it: it must not act under the dictation of another body or disable itself from exercising a discretion in each individual case. In the purported exercise of its discretion it must not do what it has been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not been authorised to do. It must act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant considerations and must not be swayed by irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote purposes alien to the letter or to the spirit of the legislation that gives it power to act, and must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Nor where a judgment must be made that certain facts exist can a discretion be validly exercised on the basis of an erroneous assumption about those facts. Nor where a judgment must be made that certain facts exist can a discretion be validly exercised on the basis of an erroneous assumption about those facts. These several principles can conveniently be grouped in two main categories: failure to exercise a discretion, and excess or abuse of discretionary power. The two classes are not, however, mutually exclusive.” 37. As referred earlier, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) highlighted that Wealth Commissioner following directions of Board of Revenue is “surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue” the Supreme Court has highlighted thus at para 5 : 5. The Commissioner appears, in our judgment, to have wholly misapprehended the true character of the jurisdiction with which he is by the Act entrusted and has surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue. The order sheet of the Commissioner (at pp. 10-36 of the printed Paper-Book) bears eloquent testimony to the manner in which the Commissioner has merely carried out the directions of the Board of Revenue, instead of deciding the case according to his own judgment. 40. In Ranjit Thakur v Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 , the Supreme Court held thus at para 17 : 17. As to the tests of the likelihood of bias what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. The proper approach for the Judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, however, honestly, “Am I biased?”; but to look at the mind of the party before him. 44. The position of law is settled that the foremost requirement of adjudication is that the adjudicator must be neutral and any one who is not neutral shall ceased to be adjudicator then only the principles of natural justice can be given true effect. 10. From the aforesaid well settled law, it is quite vivid that the adjudicator must be neutral and any one who is not neutral shall cease to be adjudicator then only the principles of natural justice can be given true effect. 11. 10. From the aforesaid well settled law, it is quite vivid that the adjudicator must be neutral and any one who is not neutral shall cease to be adjudicator then only the principles of natural justice can be given true effect. 11. In the cases at hand albeit the show cause notices were issued by the respondent No.4, but the said authority has been directed by his higher authorities pursuance to the resolution of the committee to take penal action against the petitioner and to cancel the tender as well as the work order. Thus, the show cause notice issued by the respondent No.4 appears to be an eye wash of principles of natural justice. As the higher authority who have directed the respondent No.4 to take action against the petitioner in a particular manner the respondent No.4 cannot exercise its power neutrally even after considering the reply and explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. Even the resolution has been passed by the committee and the direction given by the higher authorities to penalize the petitioner and to cancel the tender/ work order is behind the back of the petitioner that too without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned show cause notice dated 5-9-2024 is quashed. The direction issued pursuance to the resolution of the Committee dated 17/02/2025 is also quashed. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh is directed to take up this matter at his level and proceed in accordance with law and on its own merits, after following the due process of law. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Chief Secretary may proceed with the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.