- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has sought for quashing the letter dated 18.06.2007 whereby the contract for execution of residual earth work in connection with Chandil left main canal of specified description for total consideration amount of Rs. 58,06,188.50/ -, has been cancelled without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is a Government Contractor registered in category 1A who participated upon the notice inviting tender for entering into an agreement for the said work and subsequently, the agreement in question was executed on 19.02.2007 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition). The nature of work was performance of residual earth work for specified description and length in connection with Chandil left main canal. The time specified for execution of work was six months from the date of commencement of tender i.e. from 19.02.2007 concluded by 18.09.2007. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not start the execution of work on account of practical difficulties as the portion of the canal was water logged and in spite of representation made to the respondent authorities vide Annexure -2 series, the respondents did not provide the site free from all difficulties. The petitioner received order dated 18.05.2007 by which the agreement has been cancelled without any show cause or notice.
(3.) THE counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was given a number of notices as contained in Annexure -A series for starting execution of work as the work itself was to be completed within a period of six months. It is submitted that vide letter no. 317 dated 05.04.2007 (Annexure -A/2), the Executive Engineer concerned representation reminded the petitioner that he had not even started the work and was not taking interest in execution of agreement. By the said letter he was further directed to start the work at the earliest failing which he would be responsible for the delay. It is further submitted that by letter dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure A/4), the petitioner was informed once again that as per the agreement dated 19.02.2007, out of six months time specified to conclude the execution of work, three months time had already elapsed, but no progress of work has been noticed. It was also indicated that if works are not started then there would be difficulty because of impending rainy season. The Executive Engineer informed the petitioner to take steps within three days for execution of work failing which after 20.05.2007, final measurement would be taken and recommendation for termination of agreement would be made for which the petitioner would himself be liable. From perusal of Annexure -2, it appears that the petitioner received the said letter dated 14.05.2007 and responded. However, from perusal of the said letter, it appears that the petitioner once again raised issue of practical difficulties in the execution of work stating that he was not responsible for removal of water for the execution of work. In a sense, the petitioner failed to take steps for execution of work. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2007 by which the agreement no. 4F2/2006 -07 has been terminated in terms of clause -3(a) of the said agreement.;