Heard.

2. The State has appeared and filed a counter affidavit to which a reply has been filed by the petitioner. Private respondent No 6 has also appeared.

3. Shri Krishna Mohan, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that pursuant to a notice inviting tender, the petitioner had filed his tender. His tender was accepted and on 3.3.2006, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the State of Bihar through respondent No.5. The work ORDER :was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner started the work but all of a sudden, he was stopped from working by virtue of the impugned Annexure-1 dated 25.4.2006 written by the Executive Engineer. He intimated that as per the ORDER :s of the Superintending Engineer dated 7.3.2006 -and 12.4.2006, his agreement was being cancelled and the contract was being given to respondent No.6 at 15% below the scheduled price. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had not violated any terms of the agreement. There was sufficient time still left for completion of work. He could have completed the work within the stipulated time and, therefore, cancellation of his agreement without notice to him