JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Kalita and Mr. N. S. Bagga, learned counsels for the respondent No. 1, Oil India Limited and Mr. S. S. Roy, learned CGC, for the respondent No. 2. PREFACE: 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Communication dated 15.01.2026 issued by the respondent No. 1, thereby, placing the Development Order Certificate dated 12.12.2023 as well as the Amended Development Order Certificate dated 13.08.2024, in abeyance. The petitioner has also assailed in the present writ petition, the Speaking Order dated 04.03.2026, whereby, the respondent No. 1 has withdrawn the Development Order Certificate dated 12.12.2023 as well as the Amended Development Order Certificate dated 13.08.2024. CONSPECTUS OF FACTS : 3. The brief facts which led to filing of the present petition are – (A) The petitioner herein is a Medium enterprise, coming within the ambit of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act, 2006 for short). The petitioner was issued a Purchase Order No. 7800170/IDN dated 21.09.2023 for the Development and Supply of Control Line Products and Allied Accessories. The petitioner claims that the petitioner had completed the said work in the year 2023 itself. (B) Pursuant thereto, a Development Order Certificate dated 12.12.2023 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1. Subsequent thereto, the said Development Order Certificate dated 12.12.2023 was amended and a fresh Development Order Certificate, being Amended Development Order Certificate dated 13.08.2024 was issued to the petitioner. (C) It is seen from the materials on record that a writ petition was filed by one M/s Classic Oilfields Supplies and Services Pvt. Ltd. against the respondent No. 1 before the Delhi High Court, which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 14056/2025. The said writ petition pertained to a Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.03.2025 for work of procurement of 1/4" and 3/8" control line along with fittings and accessories. The petitioner herein was made a party to the said writ proceeding. The said writ petition pertained to a Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.03.2025 for work of procurement of 1/4" and 3/8" control line along with fittings and accessories. The petitioner herein was made a party to the said writ proceeding. (D) The records also reveal that on account of certain complaints received by the respondent No. 1 about the capabilities of the petitioner to manufacture products as per the Development Order Policy of OIL, an inspection was carried out on 04.01.2026 in order to understand the manufacturing process vis-a-vis the EOI dated 06.09.2023 and the Development Order Policy of OIL and Make In India initiative of the Government of India. (E) It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner could not conclusively establish that the products supplied to the respondent No. 1 have been indigenously developed. It is under such circumstances, on account of some report submitted, pursuant to the inspection carried out on 04.01.2026 as well as in view of the writ petition pending before the Delhi High Court, being WP(C) No. 14056/2025; that the respondent No. 1 issued a Communication dated 15.01.2026, thereby, keeping the Development Order Certificate dated 12.12.2023 as well as the Amended Development Order Certificate dated 13.08.2024 in abeyance, pending the outcome of the Court proceeding and the completion of the internal verification. It was also mentioned in the said Communication dated 15.01.2026 that pending the said verification and the Court proceeding, the petitioner shall not be considered for any further development activity by the respondent No. 1 and was further directed to seize all the activities related to the Development Order Certificates forthwith. (F) The records further reveal that the petitioner was unaware of the Delhi High Court proceedings, being WP(C) No. 14056/2025 and therefore, filed an application before the Delhi High Court seeking to intervene in the said proceeding. However, taking into account that the petitioner was already a party in the said writ petition, the petitioner was asked to accept notice and the said proceedings as on date, continues to remain pending. (G) It is further the case of the petitioner that thereupon, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition, challenging the order dated 15.01.2026 as well as the inspection, which was carried out on 04.01.2026. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as Writ Petition (L) No. 1732/2026. (G) It is further the case of the petitioner that thereupon, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition, challenging the order dated 15.01.2026 as well as the inspection, which was carried out on 04.01.2026. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as Writ Petition (L) No. 1732/2026. The learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court vide an order dated 03.02.2026 did not interfere with the Communication dated 15.01.2026, rather, gave the petitioner liberty to submit a representation. (H) The record further reveals that on 10.02.2026, the petitioner submitted a representation. A perusal of the said representation reveals that the said representation was in the context of the visit, which was conducted on 04.01.2026 as well as the Communication dated 15.01.2026. (I) In pursuance thereto, the Speaking order was passed on 04.03.2026 by the respondent No. 1, whereby, the respondent No. 1, instead of deciding as regards the grievance of the petitioner as regards the Communication dated 15.01.2026, went further ahead to withdraw the Development Order Certificate dated 12.12.2023 as well as the Amended Development Order Certificate dated 13.08.2024. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner, being aggrieved, had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. The records reveal that this Court vide an order dated 30.03.2026, issued Notice. There were no interim directions passed, however, it was observed that any further action taken on the basis of the impugned order dated 04.03.2026 would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 5. The records further reveal that in the meantime, the respondent No. 1 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 28.04.2026, thereby, justifying the Communication dated 15.01.2026 as well as the Speaking Order dated 04.03.2026. The petitioner had also submitted an affidavit-in-reply on 07.05.2026. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES : 6. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the instant proceeding lies within a short compass. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Development Order Certificates, which were issued in favour of the petitioner on 12.12.2023 and 13.08.2024 were certificates, by which, certain rights were created in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of these Development Order Certificates, the petitioner was able to get contracts from the various entities, including the respondent No. 1. 7. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Development Order Certificates, which were issued in favour of the petitioner on 12.12.2023 and 13.08.2024 were certificates, by which, certain rights were created in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of these Development Order Certificates, the petitioner was able to get contracts from the various entities, including the respondent No. 1. 7. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that as rights accrued on the basis of the Development Order Certificates, the said rights could not have been taken away by the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 1, without issuance of a show- cause notice to the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the very action on the part of the respondent No. 1 to withdraw the Development Order Certificate dated 12.12.2023 as well as the Amended Development Order Certificate dated 13.08.2024 by the Speaking Order dated 04.03.2026, violates the principles of natural justice, which is a facet of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Per contra, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submitted that the petitioner herein had misled the respondent authorities at the time when the contract was initially awarded in the year 2023 and that led to the issuance of the Development Order Certificates in favour of the petitioner. As the Development Order Certificates which were issued in favour of the petitioner were on account of a fraud being committed by the petitioner, no rights upon the petitioner on the basis of the said Development Order Certificates would accrued and therefore, the Speaking Order dated 04.03.2026, by which, the Development Order Certificates were withdrawn, do not call for any interference. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1 further referred to a Certificate which has been issued in respect of a product under the name of the petitioner to be manufactured in India, which is at ‘Annexure F’ to the writ petition and further, submitted that the actual certificate of the said product in question is at page no. 389 of the writ proceeding, which would show that the said product was actually manufactured in Canada. He, therefore, submitted that petitioner, having submitted a false document before this Court, is not entitled to any relief as has been sought for by the petitioner in the present proceeding. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 10. 389 of the writ proceeding, which would show that the said product was actually manufactured in Canada. He, therefore, submitted that petitioner, having submitted a false document before this Court, is not entitled to any relief as has been sought for by the petitioner in the present proceeding. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 10. This Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and had perused the materials on record. 11. The facts noted above would show that in pursuance to completion of certain work regarding to the Development and Supply of Control Line Products and Allied Accessories in the year 2023, the petitioner was issued a Development Order Certificate initially on 12.12.2023 and subsequently, an Amended Development Order Certificate on 13.08.2024. These Development Order Certificates, as submitted at the bar, are in the form of Completion Certificates. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is able to use the credentials on the basis of these certificates before various entities for procurement of other works. 12. The materials on record show that in the year 2025, the petitioner was awarded another contract based on these Development Certificates, which were issued on 12.12.2023 and 13.08.2024. The materials on record also show that on 04.01.2026, an inspection was carried out. Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain or not are questions of facts, which this Court cannot entertain in the present proceedings. Be that as it may, it is the case of the respondent No. 1, as would be seen from the Communication dated 15.01.2026 that the respondent No. 1 was not satisfied upon carrying out the inspection as to whether, the petitioner was capable of manufacturing those products or not. 13. It is also seen that on account of the writ petition being filed by one M/s. Classic Oilfields Supplies and Services Pvt. Ltd. being WP(C) No. 14056/2025; wherein, certain allegations have been leveled against the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 had issued the Communication dated 15.01.2026, thereby, keeping in abeyance the Development Order Certificate dated 12.12.2023 as well as the Amended Development Order Certificate dated 13.08.2024; till the pendency of the writ petition as well as the internal verification being carried out. 14. The petitioner had challenged the inspection which was carried out on 04.01.2026 as well as the Communication dated 15.01.2026 before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 1732/2026. 14. The petitioner had challenged the inspection which was carried out on 04.01.2026 as well as the Communication dated 15.01.2026 before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 1732/2026. The learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court did not intervene with the communication dated 15.01.2026, rather, asked the petitioner to submit a representation. 15. Taking into account that the Bombay High Court did not intervene with the Communication dated 15.01.2026, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to cause an interference to the Communication dated 15.01.2026 in the present proceeding. 16. The records further reveal that the petitioner, thereupon, submitted a representation on 10.02.2026 as per the liberty so granted by the Bombay High Court in the order dated 03.02.2026. 17. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent No. 1 could have, at best, rejected the representation of the petitioner by confirming to the Communication dated 15.01.2026, but to the shock and surprise of this Court, the respondent No. 1 went a further step ahead, thereby, withdrawing altogether the Development Order Certificate dated 12.12.2023 as well as the Amended Development Order Certificate dated 13.08.2024. 18. In the opinion of this Court, this course of action on the part of the respondent No. 1 violates the principles of natural justice in as much as there was no opportunity given to the petitioner as to under what circumstances, action was resorted for withdrawing of the Development Order Certificates. 19. It is a settled principle of law that until and unless the noticee is informed about the allegations, it cannot be said that a reasonable opportunity has been provided to the noticee for answering to the allegations. 20. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions- (i) This Court is not inclined to interfere with the Communication dated 15.01.2026. (ii) This Court interferes with the Order dated 04.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No. 1. (iii) Taking into account that by virtue of the Communication dated 15.01.2026, the Development Order Certificate dated 12.12.2023 as well as the Amended Development Order Certificate dated 13.08.2024 have been kept in abeyance, it is the opinion of this Court that the respondent No. 1 is required to take appropriate steps either to withdraw the abeyance so imposed vide the Communication dated 15.01.2026 or initiate a show-cause proceedings upon the petitioner. (iv) Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, upon instructions provided by Mrs. Kumudani Sharma, Head Legal OIL, submits that within 10 days, a detailed show-cause notice along with the materials upon which, the show-cause notice is premised, would be served upon the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner would be provided another 15 days from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice, to submit a reply. (v) Taking into account the above submission so made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it is also the opinion of this Court that the petitioner should be provided a personal hearing, in as much as intricate details as to the manner of manufacturing would require explaining the procedure. (vi) This Court observes that the respondent No. 1 should expeditiously dispose of the said show-cause proceeding, preferably within 2 months from the date of issuance of the show-cause notice. (vii) There shall be no order as to costs.