IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1135 of 2010 (M/S) M/s P & G Trading Company .…Petitioner Versus Directorate of Horticulture & Food Processing ...Respondents Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01.04.2010 passed by the respondent (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition). (b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the firm of the petitioner from black-list. (c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the earnest money of the petitioner deposit before the respondent as per the terms and conditions of the tender. (d) Issue, any other order or direction which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (e) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed by the Directorate, Horticulture without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. In support of his argument 2 learned counsel for the petitioner referred letter dated 30.03.2010 written by the Directorate, Horticulture by which the petitioner was asked ten days time for submitting his explanation. He also referred the order dated 01.04.2010 issued by the same authority by which the earnest money deposited by the petitioner was forfeited and petitioner was black listed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order dated 01.04.2010 passed by Directorate, Horticulture is illegal order in view of the fact that by his own letter dated 30.03.2010 the petitioner was given 10 days time for submitting his explanation but without waiting for the same, the order impugned was passed next day. The documents annexed by the petitioner have not been denied by the Standing Counsel but he wanted sometime for ascertaining the genuineness of the documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case it is found that these documents are forged he may be punished for the same. I am satisfied with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Directorate, Horticulture is not legal order as on 30.03.2010 he himself granted 10 days time to the petitioner for submitting his explanation and on the very next day he passed the order against the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 01.04.2010 passed by respondent- 3 Directorate, Horticulture is quashed. It will be open for the respondent-Directorate, Horticulture to take fresh decision in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Stay application no.5337 of 2010 stands disposed of. (V.K.Bist. J,) 06.07.2010 Arti 4