Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate, and Mr. Shaurya Khanna, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nishant Maini, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the office order dated 18.09.2020 (Annexure P-20) passed by respondent No.2, vide which respondent No.2 has cancelled the agreement regarding the running of three schools, which was entered into between the petitioner association and respondent No.1-Board. Challenge is also to the show-cause notice dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.2 as well as inquiry report dated 12.05.2020 (Annexure P-14). A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to release the bills/claims submitted by the petitioner association amounting to a sum of Rs.3.73 crores which has been due, to be paid by the respondent Board.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 18.09.2020 (Annexure P-20) deserves to be set aside solely on the ground that the same is non-speaking and does not reflect any application of mind. It is submitted that on 04.06.2020, respondent No.2 had passed an order of cancellation of the agreements of the three schools i.e. Adarsh Schools at Ransih Kalan (Moga); Adarsh School Pucca (Faridkot); and Adarsh School Miduman (Faridkot) and against the said order, the petitioner had filed a petition bearing CWP-8005-2020, which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in view of the statement made by the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 in the present case to the effect that respondents No.1 and 2 are ready to withdraw the order dated 04.06.2020, subject to the liberty being granted to them to proceed further from the stage of supply of the inquiry report. It is further submitted that thereafter, the inquiry report was supplied and as has been noticed in the impugned order dated 18.09.2020, a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner on all the aspects and with respect to the allegations regarding the submission of forged bills, it was stated that even as per the inquiry report submitted by respondent No.3 all the bills were found to be bona-fide for various purchases. Specific responses were given with respect to other allegations, but the respondent No.2 without even considering the said reply and without giving any reason to reject the pleas raised in the reply, has reiterated its earlier order dated 04.06.2020.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that from page 189 to 193, the impugned order dated 18.09.2020, is the verbatim copy of the earlier order dated 04.06.2020 (Annexure P-12) and subsequent to that the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition has been reproduced and thereafter, the reply filed by the present petitioner has been reproduced and subsequent part of the order shows that there is no application of mind with respect to the reply submitted. It is submitted that from the impugned order, it is not discernible as to on what basis respondent No.2 has passed the said order & cancelled the agreements in favour of the petitioner and the impugned order only records that no new facts have been stated by the petitioner.

3. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment dated 13.07.2023 passed in CWP-1877-2022 titled as " Gagnish Singh Khurana vs. State of Punjab and others ". It is stated that although as per the inquiry report, the bills have been found to be bonafide, but yet, even regarding the said bills, the amount has not be