JUDGMENT

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

(1) LEAVE is granted.

(2) THIS appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, passed on 13/03/2001, dismissing writ petition no. 1041 of 2001, filed by the appellant challenging the validity of the order passed by the 3rd respondent on 21/12/2000.

(3) THE appellant was registered as a class B contractor for supplying meat group items to headquarter, central command , respondent no. 2. The contract carrying capacity of the appellant was then limited to Rs. 1.80 crores. On 4/09/2000, its contract carrying capacity was enhanced to Rs. 7.20 crores by the central command, Lucknow by letter dated 4/09/2000. Thus, it became class A contractor. On the request of the appellant, to enable it to compete in securing contract in western command, respondent no. 3, its contract carrying capacity limited to Rs. 6.50 crores was transferred by respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 3, which was acknowledged by letter dated 14/12/2000. The second respondent by its letter dated 21/12/2000 informed the appellant that its contract carrying capacity for Rs. 6.50 crores was accepted by the third respondent. However, by the impugned order of the third respondent, the contract carrying capacity of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 3.50 crores and the same was intimated to it on 21/12/2000. The validity of that letter was assailed by the appellant before the High Court at Allahabad in writ petition no. 1041 of 2001. On 13/03/2001, the division bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition taking the view that the matter is related to non-statutory contract. It is the correctness of that order of the High Court that is under challenge in this appeal.

(4) MRS. Shobha Dixit, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, contends that by arbitrarily reducing the contract carrying capacity of the appellant, the third respondent rendered it ineligible to compete for securing contracts as a class A contractor and in fact, the appellant is eliminated from the competition. The impugned order of the third respondent was passed without any notice to the appellant. The High Court has not correctly appreciated the point raised before it and dismissed the writ petition, therefore, the order of the High Court deserves to be set aside.

(5) MR. G. Venkatesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that having regard to the policy contained in letter dated 21/12/2000, the contract carrying capacity of the appellant was correctly determined and he was accordingly intimated. The High Court declined to interfere with the order of the third respondent, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.

(6) THE short point that arises for our consideration is : whether the order of the High Court under challenge, declining to interfere with the impugned order issued by the third respondent on 21/12/2000, is sustainable in law.

(7) IT is not in dispute that the appellant is a class A contractor with the second respondent who transferred the contract carrying capacity of the appellant limited to 6.50 crores to the headquarter, western command, respondent no. 3. This was accepted by the third respondent as evidenced by letter dated 14/12/2000. This fact was reaffirmed by the letter of the second respondent issued on 21/12/2000. The net result of the exercise is that the appellant became eligible to compete as a class A contractor upto the limit of Rs. 6.50 crores. This is a civil right of the appellant which cannot be taken away or even curtailed, except in accordance with law. Admittedly before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant by the third respondent, as such the impugned order suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice and such an order cannot but be an arbitrary order. This is evident from