ORDER : (SUREPALLI NANDA, J.) Heard Sri S.S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned senior designated counsel representing the learned counsel Sri S.N.Chidambara Sastry, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandez, learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…. issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the e-mail communications dated 21.02.2025 at 17.00 hours and the e-mail communication dated 01.04.2025 at 19.25 hours (from Mr.A.Karthik and Mr.Raju AM, purporting to act on behalf of the 1 st and 2 nd respondents) Cancelling the LOA dated 20.02.2025 issued to the petitioner on a wrong premise that by 21.03.2025, 30 days have lapsed from the date of LOA making it liable for cancellation as arbitrary illegal unjust and as in violation of the principles of natural justice and issue a consequential directions directing the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the contract work/s as per the LOA dated 20.02.2025 issued to it and to permit the petitioner to carry out and execute the work order dated 12.03.2025 and other work orders issued to it and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.” PERUSED THE RECORD:- 3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under: The 1 st respondent had issued a Tender Notice bearing NO.SRCC/RIM/PT/157/TAPSO/2024-25 for bunker supply of black oil and white oil through tanker barges to the coastal/foreign run sea going vessels berthed at inner harbor, outer harbor, and outer anchorage of vizag port. In response to the said Tender Notice petitioner along with others submitted their tenders. The 1 st respondent accepted the tender submitted by the petitioner and the 1 st respondent by a letter dated 20.02.2025 issued the Letter of Acceptance. As per the said LoA the period of contract is for three years from the date of the LoA and it is extendable for a further period of 9 months on mutual consent in line with GeM conditions. As per the said LoA the period of contract is for three years from the date of the LoA and it is extendable for a further period of 9 months on mutual consent in line with GeM conditions. The 1 st respondent issued to the petitioner the work order bearing No.70881429 dated 12.03.2025 for transporting white oil and black oil to coastal and foreign run vessels calling at Vizag Port through tanker barges (small category barges). As per the normal practice and procedure in vogue the petitioner has to execute the work within a period of 30 days from the date of work order. The work order did not stipulate any time limit for execution. The petitioner received an e-mail from one of the officials of the 1 st respondent in February 2025 stating that the petitioner should keep its barge ready on or before 21.03.2025 failing which the LoA is liable for cancellation. It is further the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to implement and execute the work order given by the 1 st respondent once clearance is received from Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. The petitioner infact made a request for the clearance of its barge from Kakinada Port initially on 03.03.2025, as the Respondents 3 and 5 did not take any action, the petitioner resubmitted its application dated 22.03.2025 and even approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court by filing W.P.No.8234 of 2025 seeking prayer as under: “…to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not issuing to the petitioner the clearance/no objection for the movement of the petitioner’s barge CAPSTAR1 as per its request/application made through Official Portal dt. 03.03.2025 resubmitted on 22.03.2025 as arbitrary illegal and as contrary to the relevant Rules Regulations and the established practice in processing such requests and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith grant the clearance/no objection for the movement of the petitioners barge CAPSTAR1 from Kakinada Port to Visakhapatnam Port for supply of black oil and white oil as per the contract awarded to the petitioner for such supply by the respondent, And (b) declare the proposed action of the Respondent 1 in threatening to cancel the letter of acceptance dt 20022025 as per the E mail communication dt 21032025 of one of the officials of the 1st Respondent as arbitrary illegal improper as in violation of the principles of natural justice and as unjust and issue a consequential direction direct the Respondent 1 not to take any such precipitate action against the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to execute the work order in accordance with the letter of acceptance dt 20 022025 issued by the 1ST respondent to the petitioner, (c) and pass…” In the said writ petition A.P. High Court passed orders dated 02.04.2025 in W.P.No.8234 of 2025 observing as under: "The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not issuing the clearance / no objection certificate to the petitioner for the movement of the petitioner’s barge CAPSTAR-1 as per its request / application made through official portal dated 03.03.2025, resubmitted on 22.03.2025, as illegal and arbitrary. One more prayer is sought in the writ petition to declare the action of 1 st respondent in threatening to cancel the letter of acceptance dated 20.02.2025 as per the e-mail communication dated 21.03.2025, as illegal and arbitrary. In respect of the first prayer in the writ petition, the Port authorities issued clearance vide E.M.No.943/2024- 25, dated 27.03.2025. Since the clearance was granted by the 2nd respondent, no further orders are required in respect of the first relief is concerned. In respect of the second relief is concerned, by the communication dated 01.04.2025, the 1st respondent cancelled the LOA dated 20.02.2025 issued in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the same was communicated to the petitioner through e-mail. In fact, the same was handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the same was communicated to the petitioner through e-mail. In fact, the same was handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to amend the prayer. List the matter on 16.04.2025.” It is further the specific case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent delayed the port clearance. It gave clearance after the writ petition was filed in A.P. High Court. The clearance was given on 27.03.2025 and on 28.03.2025 itself the barge moved out of Kakinda Port and reached the Visakhapatnam Port, and was available for any inspection. It is further the case of the petitioner that one Mr.Karthik sent the e-mail on 20.03.2025 stating that the offered barge has not been positioned till that date and advised the petitioner to position the Barge within 30 days of LoA that is 21.03.2025 failing which the LoA is liable for cancellation. The petitioner by reply e-mail dated 20.03.2025 had informed the factual situation and informed them that the barge will be ready by 31.03.2025. Though the barge was ready, its clearance was delayed by the arbitrary action on the part of the 2 nd respondent. The petitioner received the clearance on the night of 27.03.2025. The barge moved out of the Kakinada Port and reached the Visakhapatnam Port the next day i.e., 28.03.2025, the LoA issued to the petitioner is dated 20.02.2025. The Barge was ready by 28.03.2025. The period of 30 days did not expire by 21.03.2025. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 01.04.2025 at 19:24 hours petitioner received an e-mail communication by one Sri Raju AM, stating that the LoA/Work Order issued in favour of the petitioner “stood cancelled” as the petitioner had failed to offer the barge for inspection by IoC/Authorized independent Surveyors, before the due date 21.03.2025, i.e., 30 days from the date of LoA. This w as not preceded by any show -cause notice informing the petitioner that the barge should be ready for inspection by any of the officials of the 1 st respondent, the LoA which is valid for a period of three years issued by the competent Authority of the 1 st respondent could not have been cancelled unilaterally without issuing any prior show -cause notice by some other officials of 1 st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- DISCUSSION:- 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) The proceedings of the respondent Nos.1 & 2, dated 01.04.2025 communicated by e-mail to the petitioner that its LOA, dated 20.02.2025 and the Work Order stands cancelled as the Barge of the petitioner was not positioned by 21.03.2025 is in clear violation of principles of natural justice, since no prior notice had been issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner about the said proposed action of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and calling for petitioner’s explanation prior to cancelling the said LOA. ii) The LOA of the petitioner is dated 20.02.2025 and even if within 30 days of the LOA, the Barge has to be inspected by the IOC authorized independent surveyor, the said 30 days period did not expire by 21.03.2025 since the month February has only 28 days and admittedly, the 30 days period from 20.02.2025 did not expire by 21.03.2025. iii) The Work Order issued to the petitioner is dated 12.03.2025 and cancelling the LOA, on the ground of expiry of 30 days by 21.03.2025, even before the completion of 30 days period is highly illegal, arbitrary and malafide and is intended only to favour other tenderers. iv) The petitioner had made a detailed representation, 28.03.2025 through e-mail, but however, the same had not been considered as on date. v) Not permitting the petitioner to complete the contract works as per LOA, dated 20.02.2025 issued to the petitioner and cancelling the LOA, dated 20.02.2025 issued to the petitioner on a wrong premise, that by 21.03.2025, 30 days have lapsed from the date of LOA making it liable for cancellation is highly arbitrary, illegal, unjust and irrational. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the Writ Petition should be allow ed as prayed for. 5. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the Writ Petition should be allow ed as prayed for. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) The petitioner filed W.P.No.8234 of 2025 on the file of High Court at Amaravathi and a representation was made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that steps would be taken to amend the prayer challenging the impugned order of the 1 st respondent, dated 01.04.2025 cancelling the LOA, dated 20.02.2025 issued in favour of the petitioner before A.P.High Court and the petitioner instead approached the Telangana High Court and filed the present W.P.No.15034 of 2025 and the same amounted to forum shopping and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. ii) The petitioner without withdrawing the W.P.No.8234 of 2025 filed on the file of A.P.High Court by the petitioner herein cannot seek any relief in the present Writ Petition before the Telangana High Court. iii) There is no illegality in the proceedings, impugned, dated 01.04.2025 of the 1 st and 2 nd respondent herein, since the petitioner failed to offer the Barge for inspection by IOC/IOC authorized independent surveyors ready in all aspects for effecting bunker supplies before the due date 21.03.2025, i.e., within 30 days from the date of LOA and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief in the present writ Petition. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, contends that the present Writ Petition needs to be dismissed in limini. CONCLUSION:- 6. In so far as the maintainability of the present Writ Petition is concerned. It is relevant to refer Clause 22.7(b) of the Notice inviting tender (GEM Services) Tender No.SRCC/ RI M/ PT/ 157/ TAPSO/ 2024-25, and the same is extracted hereunder:- “ 22.7. Jurisdiction for the tenders invited by RCC-SRO at Chennai 22.7(b) for disputes after LOI and during execution stage –At all places in the GCC enclosed with the tender document OWNER shall mean INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, with its office at Hyderabad. Jurisdiction for the tenders invited by RCC-SRO at Chennai 22.7(b) for disputes after LOI and during execution stage –At all places in the GCC enclosed with the tender document OWNER shall mean INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, with its office at Hyderabad. The Court of jurisdiction for all matters under the tender shall be at Hyderabad” As per the above referred Clause, this Court opines that the present Writ Petition is maintainable. 7. The Court of jurisdiction for all matters under the tender shall be at Hyderabad” As per the above referred Clause, this Court opines that the present Writ Petition is maintainable. 7. In so far as the plea of the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is concerned that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable, since petitioner filed W.P.No.8234 of 2025 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati is not tenable in view of the simple fact as borne on record that the said W.P. had been filed on the file of A.P.High Court with prayer as under ‘…to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not issuing to the petitioner the clearance/no objection for the movement of the petitioners barge CAPSTAR1 as per its request/application made through Official Portal dt 03.03.2025 resubmitted on 22.03.2025 as arbitrary illegal and as contrary to the relevant Rules Regulations and the established practice in processing such requests and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith grant the clearance/no objection for the movement of the petitioners barge CAPSTAR1 from Kakinada Port to Visakhapatnam Port for supply of black oil and white oil as per the contract awarded to the petitioner for such supply by the respondent And b declare the proposed action of the Respondent 1 in threatening to cancel the letter of acceptance dt 20.02.2025 as per the E mail communication dt 21.03.2025 of one of the officials of the 1 st Respondent as arbitrary illegal improper as in violation of the principles of natural justice and as unjust and issue a consequential direction direct the Respondent 1 not to take any such precipitate action against the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to execute the work order in accordance with the letter of acceptance dt 20.02.2025 issued by the 1 st respondent to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case’ The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner herein as per Clause 22.7(b) of the Notice Inviting Tender/ GEM Services, Tender No.SRCC/ RIM/PT/157/TAPSO/ 2024-25(referred to and extracted above) with a specific prayer which is different from the prayer sought for in W.P.No.8234 of 2025 filed by the petitioner herein on the file of A.P.High Court. The prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present W.P.No.15034 of 2025 is extracted hereunder:- “…….issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the e-mail communications dated 21.02.2025 at 17.00 hours and the e-mail communication dated 01.04.2025 at 19.25 hours (from Mr.A.Karthik and Mr.Raju AM, purporting to act on behalf of the 1 st and 2 nd respondents) Cancelling the LOA dated 20.02.2025 issued to the petitioner on a wrong premise that by 21.03.2025, 30 days have lapsed from the date of LOA making it liable for cancellation as arbitrary illegal unjust and as in violation of the principles of natural justice and issue a consequential directions directing the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the contract work/s as per the LOA dated 20.02.2025 issued to it and to permit the petitioner to carry out and execute the work order dated 12.03.2025 and other work orders issued to it and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case” This Court taking into consideration the fact as borne on record that the prayer sought for by the petitioner herein in W.P.No.8234 of 2025 on the file of the A.P.High Court and the prayer sought for in the present Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.15034 of 2025 on the file of the Telangana High Court being different from each other opines that the present Writ Petition is maintainable as per Clause 22.7(b) of the Notice I nviting Tender/ GEM Services, Tender No.SRCC/RI M/ PT/157/TAPSO/ 2024-25(referred to and extracted above). 8. In so far as the facts not in dispute are concerned, it is true that by a letter, dated 20.02.2025, the 1 st respondent issued the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to the petitioner herein, as per the said LOA, the period of contract is for three years from the date of LOA and it is extendable for a further period of 09 months on mutual consent in line with GeM conditions, but how ever, the 1 st respondent issued to the petitioner the Work Order bearing No.70881429 for transporting White Oil and Black Oil to Coastal and Foreign run vessels calling at Vizag port through tanker barges (small category barges) only on 12.03.2025. It is also a fact borne on record that the Work Order issued to the petitioner did not stipulate any time limit for execution, but how ever the impugned proceedings of the 1 st & 2 nd respondent, dated 01.04.2025 through e-mail had been communicated to the petitioner informed the petitioner that its LOA, dated 20.02.2025 and the Work Order stands cancelled as the Barge of the petitioner w as not positioned by 21.03.2025 i.e., within 30 days from the date of LOA. 9. This Court opines that even though the date of LOA issued to the petitioner is dated 20.02.2025 fact remains that admittedly, the Work Order issued to the petitioner is only on 12.03.2025 and the petitioner admittedly can commence his work only after receipt of the Work Order from the 1 st respondent and not earlier than that, and therefore, this Court opines that the action of the 1 st & 2 nd respondent in cancelling the Work Order on the ground that petitioner failed to offer the Barge for inspection by IOC/ IOC authorized independent surveyors ready in all aspects for effecting bunkers supplies before the due date 21.03.2025 i.e., within 30 days from the date of LOA is not only arbitrary, whimsical, mechanical, but also highly unreasonable, unfair and unjust. 10. I t is also borne on record and even admitted by the learned standing appearing on behalf of the respondents that admittedly, prior to the issuance of the impugned proceedings of the 1 st & 2 nd respondent, dated 01.04.2025 communicated by e-mail to the petitioner, informing the petitioner that its LOA, dated 20.02.2025 and the Work Order stands cancelled, the petitioner w as not provided with an opportunity of personal hearing and admittedly, as borne on record, no specific show -cause notice w as issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner about the proposed action contemplated by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and further, calling for explanation from the petitioner. 1 & 2 and further, calling for explanation from the petitioner. A) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40 in “UMA NATH PANDEY & OTEHRS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER” at paras 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 w hat is commonly know n as audi alteram parte rule. I t says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. I t 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. I n the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes w holly 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. 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 w as called upon to make his defence. ‘Adam’ (says God), ‘w here art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree w hereof I command thee that thou shouldest not eat” . Since then the principle has been chiseled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. ‘Adam’ (says God), ‘w here art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree w hereof I command thee that thou shouldest not eat” . Since then the principle has been chiseled, 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” . B) In "MANGI LAL 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. I n other words, a statutory silence should be taken to imply the need to observe the principles of natural justice w here 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 w hose 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. 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. I ts 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.” (C) In “ Cantonment Board v. Taramani Devi ” , reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 501, a two-judge Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14. Similarly, in “ DTC v. MAZDOOR CONGRESS” reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 600, the Apex Court observed that the rule of audi alteram partem enforces the equality clause in Article 14. Therefore, any administrative action w hich violates the rule of audi alteram partem is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. 11. This Court opines that in view of the fact as borne on record that the LOA, dated 20.02.2025 issued by the 1 st respondent in favour of the petitioner indicated the period of contract as three years from the date of the LOA with a further clear stipulation that the said period is extendable for a further period of nine months on mutual consent in line with GeM conditions and the same had been cancelled unilaterally without even providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and without issuing a prior show -cause notice intimating the petitioner about the proposed cancellation of LOA by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and calling for explanation from the petitioner specifically referring to the grounds on which the said action w as proposed, this Court opines that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 had acted hastily in dealing with the subject issue and had passed the order impugned mechanically, erroneously without application of mind, malafidely. 12. 12. I n view of the fact that the petitioner vide her representation, dated 01.04.2025 at 12:58 informed the respondent Nos1 & 2 herein that the petitioner’s Barge is 100% ready for inspection and is aw iting allotment of work and since the same had not been considered as on date, this Court opines that the request of the petitioner needs to be considered and the impugned decision of the respondent Nos.1 & 2, dated 01.04.2025 communicated by e-mail to the petitioner informing the petitioner that its LOA, dated 20.02.2025 and the Work Order stands cancelled needs to be reconsidered in accordance to law in conformity w ith principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in the light of the reasoning and conclusion as arrived at as above. 13. Taking into consideration: a) The facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Indian Oil Corporation Limited appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. c) The representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2025 wherein no orders had been passed as on date, d) The impugned proceedings of the respondent Nos.1 & 2, dated 01.04.2025 communicated by e-mail to the petitioner. e) The LOA, dated 20.02.2025 issued to the petitioner by the 1 st respondent. f) The Work Order, dated 12.03.2025 issued to the petitioner by the 1 st respondent g) The fact as borne on record, that the petitioner w as not provided with an opportunity of personal hearing nor a show -cause notice had been issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned proceedings of the 1 st respondent, dated 01.04.2025. h) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above)enlisted below :- (i) (2009) 12 SCC 40 in Uma Nath Pandey & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (ii) (2004) 2 SCC page 447, in Mangilal Vs. State of M.P., (iii) (2023) 6 SCC 1 in State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Agarwal, (iv) (1992) Supp (2) SCC Page 501, in Cantonment Board Vs. Taramani Devi, i) I n the light of the discussion, reasoning and conclusion arrived at para Nos. 4 to 12. State of Uttar Pradesh, (ii) (2004) 2 SCC page 447, in Mangilal Vs. State of M.P., (iii) (2023) 6 SCC 1 in State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Agarwal, (iv) (1992) Supp (2) SCC Page 501, in Cantonment Board Vs. Taramani Devi, i) I n the light of the discussion, reasoning and conclusion arrived at para Nos. 4 to 12. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth vide petitioner’s representation, dated 01.04.2025 through e-mail and further reconsider the impugned decision of the 1 & 2 nd respondent, dated 01.04.2025 communicated by e- mail to the petitioner, informing the petitioner that its LOA, dated 20.02.2025 and Work Order stands cancelled in accordance to law , duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above), in conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Till the exercise as indicated as above is initiated and concluded by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, by passing of appropriate orders duly considering petitioner’s representation, dated 01.04.2025 and duly reconsidering the impugned proceedings, dated 01.04.2025 of the 1 st & 2 nd respondent as per the specific directions as indicated as above within the time period as stipulated as above, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and its Barge CAPSTAR 1. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.