- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant State and the writ petitioner / respondent herein.
(2.) Appellant State being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Writ Court dated 23.04.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5883 of 2009 is in appeal. The orders of termination of two agreements i.e., (i) Memo no. 449 Chaibasa dated 13.07.2009 terminating the agreement no. 02 F2/2008-09 dated 07.08.2008 concerning repairing of surrounding of Shaheed Chowk at Khunti in K.M 37 of N.H.75, Ranchi -Chaibasa - Jaintgarh road and (ii) Letter bearing memo no. 83 dated 03.02.2010 terminating the agreement no. 01 F2/2008-09 date 02.08.2008 concerning the restoration of damaged portion in K.M. 16 to 115 of Ranchi-Chaibasa Section of N.H. 75(E) were under challenge in the writ petition by the contractor. By the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2014, learned Single Judge has held as under: "29. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner after getting the work orders had started the works pursuant to the agreements. The respondents have also not disputed that the petitioner had mae representations regarding demand of levy, threat of violence and disturbance by the extremist outfit. The respondents have also not mentioned anywhere in the counter affidavit that any noice, informing the reasons and / or opportunity of representation was given to the petitioner before rescinding the agreements and forfeiting the security deposits and the earnest money. It has been emphatically contended by the petitioner that no prior notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner and the impugned orders were a surprise to him. The impugned orders, rescinding the agreements, without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner, are violative of principles of natural justice and offend the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 30. From the facts appearing on record, it is also evidence that the petitioner had not willfully neglected or delayed execution of the works, rather he was prevented from doing so under the aforesaid circumstances beyond his control. The petitioner had apprised the respondents about the said situation and requested for protection against the extremist outfit, but the respondents did not pay any heed. On the contrary they issued the impugned orders, rescinding the agreement dated 7th August, 2008 and 2nd August, 2008 and forfeiting the earnest money and security deposits of the petitioner. 31. The impugned order dated 13th July, 2009 and 3rd February, 2010, being wholly arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, are vitiated and null and void and the same are, accordingly, quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the petitioner's earnest money and security deposits or any other amount deposited by the petitioner in respect of Agreement Nos. 01 F-2/2008-09 and 02 F-2/2008- 09, treating the same closed at the end of the respondents, within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order".
(3.) On behalf of the appellant State, Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Additional Advocate General has inter alia urged the following grounds: i. that there is no dispute on payment of the admissible dues of the contractor; ii. agreements were terminated as the contractor failed to execute the work in a time bound manner as per the schedule of the work; iii. appellant undertook all steps to ensure compliance of the principles of natural justice before termination of the agreements; iv. even if the orders of termination of agreements were quashed as being violative of principles of natural justice, the matter should have been remanded to the authorities concerned to pass an order afresh. Instead the learned Single Judge has even after quashing the order of termination, directed the refund of the petitioner's earnest money and security deposit or any other amount deposited in respect of the two agreements treating the same as closed at the end of the respondent State. ;