157 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15829-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9th July, 2026. A.S. SPORTS .…...Petitioner(s) V/s STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ......Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR (Through Video Conference/Hybrid Mode) Present Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. (Appeared through VC) Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 30.09.2025. A reminder was thereafter issued on 10.11.2025, which required the petitioner to submit its reply by 17.11.2025 and also fixed the date of personal hearing on the same day, i.e. 17.11.2025. The petitioner, however, had already filed a detailed reply dated 14.11.2025 on the common portal along with all relevant documents, despite this, the respondents proceeded to pass the order‑in‑original on 09.04.2026, recording that no reply had been filed on the common portal. The petitioner, therefore, assails the order dated 09.04.2026 on the ground that his reply dated 14.11.2025, which was duly uploaded on the common portal, has not been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order. It is further urged that the reminder dated 10.11.2025 could not have fixed the same date i.e. 17.11.2025, both for submission of SURESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15829-2026 (O&M) reply and for personal hearing. The submission is that the impugned action of the respondents is wholly violative of the principles of natural justice. 2. The petition is opposed by the learned State counsel; however, the factual recital in the impugned order, as noticed above, is not disputed. It stands admitted that the show‑cause notice was issued on 30.09.2025 and the reminder was issued on 10.11.2025. The petitioner had already submitted a detailed reply on 14.11.2025 on the common portal, well within the time prescribed under the reminder. Moreover, the reminder dated 10.11.2025 could not have validly fixed the same date, i.e., 17.11.2025, both as the last date for filing the reply and as the date of personal hearing. In these circumstances, the order dated 09.04.2026 is found to be violative of the principles of natural justice, as the reply filed by the petitioner on 14.11.2025 was not adverted to by the respondents while passing the final order. 3. Accordingly, we allow the present petition and quash the impugned order dated 09.04.2026. The authority concerned shall be at liberty to pass speaking order afresh after adverting to the reply dated 14.11.2025 filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 4. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. [ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE [ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE July 9, 2026 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No Whether Reportable : Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document