JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Bandopadhyay, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. I have also heard Mr. P. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6.

2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2019 and the Suspension Notice dated 11.12.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 2. The basis issue in the instant writ proceedings is as to whether the action of the Respondent authorities, more particularly, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in issuance of the show cause notice and the subsequent suspension order was illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair on the ground that the petitioner could not produce the authenticity certificate that the petitioner is a small enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short "the Act of 2006) in the format as directed by the Respondent No. 1 authority.

3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of transporting bulk LPG within India. The petitioner is registered as a small enterprise under the Act of 2006 and had been issued a certificate bearing No. WB10E0012250 by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India. The petitioner was issued a provisional letter of intent by the Respondent No. 1 on 08/11/2018 for the purpose of transportation of bulk LPG for the State of Assam. On 30/8/2019 the petitioner received an email from the Respondent/IOCL authority asking the petitioner to get the UAM number verified and authenticated (with a specific reference to the investments made by the petitioner's firm and showing that it is not crossing the ceiling limit of Rs. 2 crores) by the General Manager of District Industries Centre, Kolkata appointed under the Act of 2006 and submit the said verification/authentication report within a period of 10 days. It was made clear that if within the period of 10 days such verification/authentication of the petitioner's status is not changed to medium industry or UAM number is cancelled or process for said cancellation is initiated by the MSME authority, the respondent IOCL authorities would be constrained to take action as per the terms and conditions contained in the work contract agreement/tender document.

4. Upon receiving the said email the petitioner took steps before the General Manager In-charge (Respondent No. 5) and issued a Communication to the Respondent No. 5 dated 5/9/2019 stating inter alia that the petitioner requires to get the UAM number verified and authenticated with a specific reference to the investment made by the firm and showing that it is not crossing the ceiling limit of Rs. 2 crores as the same is advised by the respondent IOCL authorities. On 9/9/2019 the petitioner informed the Respondent No. 3 that the petitioner had taken steps before the Respondent No. 5 and would submit the said verification report to the Respondent IOCL authorities once the same is issued by the Respondent No. 5. On 17/9/2019 the Respondent No. 4 issued an email to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was required to take steps before the Respondent No. 5 for verification of the UAM number/MSE certificate under the provisions of the Act of 2006 and the certificate should be in the manner as stipulated in the said email. It was further made clear that if the verification/authentication certificate is not received by 25/9/2019 appropriate action shall be taken in terms with the work contract agreement/tender document. The petitioner immediately thereupon on 23/9/2015 issued a Communication to the Respondent No. 5 requesting the said authority to issue the certificate in terms with the format mentioned in the email dated 17/9/2019 issued by the Respondent No. 2. On 25/9/2019, the Respondent No. 4 was duly informed that such steps as directed in the email dated 17/9/2019 was taken befor