Pending representations must be decided after personal hearing through a reasoned order.

The petitioners challenged, inter alia, the termination of their Handling and Transportation Contract at the Central Warehouse, Kishanganj; blacklisting and debarment for five years; forfeiture of their performance-security bank guarantee of ₹27,25,453; and the subsequent tender and award in favour of M/s Tanweer Ahmad.

An earlier writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2740 of 2026, had been disposed of on 20 February 2026 with directions to the petitioners to submit a representation before the Regional Manager, who was required to hear all stakeholders, consider the documents, and pass a reasoned order.

In the present proceedings, the petitioners stated that their representations, including the representation dated 15 April 2026, remained pending.

The Central Warehousing Corporation submitted that the petitioners had been called for personal hearing but had not availed of the opportunity, and undertook to provide a hearing within two weeks and pass an order within three weeks thereafter.

The petitioners accepted this course of action.

1. Whether the Court should adjudicate the petitioners’ substantive challenges to the termination, blacklisting, forfeiture, and subsequent tender process when the representation directed to be considered in the earlier writ petition remained pending.

2. Whether the Central Warehousing Corporation should be directed to afford the petitioners a personal hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order on their representation dated 15 April 2026.

3. Whether the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the undertaking given by the Central Warehousing Corporation, while leaving the petitioners at liberty to pursue remedies available in law against the decision subsequently passed.

The Court applied the procedural directions issued in the earlier writ petition, requiring the competent authority to consider the petitioners’ representation after granting due opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The Court also applied the principle of natural justice, particularly the requirement of an effective personal hearing before determination of the petitioners’ grievances and consequential adverse action.

The Court noted that the earlier writ petition had already prescribed the appropriate procedural mechanism for resolving the petitioners’ grievances—submission and consideration of a representation by the Regional Manager after hearing the stakeholders.

Since the petitioners’ representation dated 15 April 2026 was still pending, and the respondents maintained that the petitioners had not availed the offered personal hearing, the Court considered it appropriate to allow the administrative process to be completed rather than examine the substantive challenges at that stage.

The respondents’ undertaking ensured that the petitioners would receive a hearing within two weeks, with a final order to follow within three weeks thereafter. The petitioners expressly accepted these directions.

The Central Warehousing Corporation was directed, in terms of its undertaking, to inform the petitioners of the date and time of personal hearing at least three days in advance, conduct the hearing within two weeks, and pass an order on the representation dated 15 April 2026 within three weeks after the hearing.

The petitioners were left free to pursue such remedies as may be available in law if aggrieved by the order subsequently passed.