Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) Two writ petitions are taken up for consideration analogously as they involve similar issues. For the sake of convenience, the facts of W.P. No. 1645 of 2010 are alluded to.
(2.) The petitioners assail a decision of the first respondent in forfeiting the earnest money deposit in respect of a tender.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the first respondent had floated a tender for construction of a railway siding. The first petitioner participated therein. The first petitioner deposited earnest money in terms of the tender conditions of such tender. The first petitioner suffered a show-cause notice dated July 20, 2009. The first petitioner replied thereto. The show-cause notice dated July 20, 2009 refers to one allegation while the impugned decision of the first respondent is on the basis of another ground. The decision is based on alleged suppression of a material fact which ground is absent in the show-cause notice. Relying upon (Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 2014 9 SCC 105) he submits that, the decision of the first respondent suffers from the breach of principles of natural justice. He relies upon (SACI Allied Products Ltd., U.P. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, 2005 7 SCC 159) for a similar proposition.;