HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31514 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Prateek Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Respondent No. 2 invited tenders for the work of manual cleaning, laundry and gardening through GEM portal. The petitioner-firm was L1 tenderer. On 23.05.2025, respondent No. 2 issued an order mentioning that the petitioner being L1 tenderer, a contract was executed with it on 20 May 2025 and the Authorities were required to take work from the petitioner from 23.05.2025. The case of the petitioner is that it had deposited 2% of the contract amount on 24 May 2025 as stipulated under the contract. On 25.08.2025, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order cancelling the contract. The order recites that on receipt of a complaint from one Ram Chandra Chaudhary, the District Magistrate constituted an enquiry committee and the said Committee has found the tender process to be defective. The order also recites that the District Magistrate vide order dated 22.08.2025 has directed for cancellation of the contract. Accordingly, the contract was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after a concluded contract came into existence, it was not open to respondent No. 2 to cancel the contract without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submits that even copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohit Verma, Sachida Nand Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Jansansadhan Kendra Through Its Proprietor Sunil Singh And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel very fairly concedes that in the facts noted above, the petitioner was entitled to notice and opportunity of hearing, and also the adverse material, and without which, the order is in violation of principle of natural justice. 5. In view of above, we hereby quash the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by respondent No. 2. It is further provided that respondent No. 2 will issue proper notice to the petitioner and also supply the petitioner with all adverse material on which respondent No. 2 seeks to rely upon. The petitioner will have two weeks to file reply to the notice as may be served on the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 will thereafter pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 7. As the impugned order has been quashed, the respondents will not award contract to any other person until decision is taken in compliance of the instant order. September 17, 2025 Mukesh Kr. WRIC No. 31514 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad