- (1.) I. A. No. 2065 of 2011 An intervention application has been filed on behalf of B. K. Yadav, Proprietor of M/s. B. K. Enterprises vide I. A. No. 2065 of 2011. Intervention application is allowed. Let the applicant be added as Respondent No. 5 in the instant writ petition. W.P. (C) No. 482 of 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as on behalf of the State. Mr. P. K. Prasad, Sr. Advocate has appeared for the Intervenor and also advanced his arguments.
(2.) THE order impugned in the instant writ petition is Annexure-4 dated 17-1-2011 whereby the Agreement No. 02F2/10-11 was cancelled. THE letter dated 17th January, 2011 is only an information that the agreement on behalf of the petitioner stands cancelled. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that tender was invited for construction of Chalkusa Block Office, Circle office and residential houses vide publication made on 19- 9-2010. The petitioner's firm M/s. Jyoti Enterprises had applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement and his bid was accepted. Consequent thereon, the petitioner entered into an agreement on 2-12-2010 and the work was passed over to him after a deposit of Rs. 6,95,000/-. Earlier, an advance money was also deposited to the tune of Rs. 4,65,000/-. These factual aspects are denoted by Annex- ure-3 which is a letter No. 1663 dated 2-12- 2010 to the writ petition. Another letter was issued vide letter No. 1664 on 2-12-2010 itself to commence the work. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that he invested Rs. 5,00,000/- and the contract labourers were given advance so that the work allotted to him may be completed within the time frame of 18 months. It is also contended that material worth Rs. 20 lacs was purchased on the site and it was stacked by the petitioner meaning thereby that the petitioner had invested a huge amount towards the work allotted to him by the respondents.
(3.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is that once his tender was accepted, agreement was executed and he was asked to commence the work and after investment of a huge amount of money, the agreement could not be cancelled, unilaterally without notice or opportunity of hearing, by a letter which has been done in the instant case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has tried to bring to the notice of the Court that the order passed by the Chief Engineer and the consequent agreement executed was without jurisdiction as he was not authorized to do so and, therefore, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.;