The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of audi alteram partem, and the petitioner did not obtain the contracts by practicing fraud. Additionally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel was found to be applicable against the government's actions.

JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - Since both the writ applications, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been brought by the same petitioner raising same questions of law to be adjudicated and the respondents have defended the impugned orders on common grounds, hence, both have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

Facts of CWJC No.3963 of 2020.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Govt. contract, registered as Class-I contractor. Respondent No.8, the Executive Engineer, PHED, Saharsa Division floated tenders on 15.06.2019. The technical bids of tenders were opened on 16.08.2019 and financial bid in JulyAugust, 2019. Since the petitioner was the lowest bidder, its bid was accepted by the respondent No.8 and work order was issued in favour of the petitioner in between 19.09.2019 to 18.12.2019 for execution of different contracts, total 118 signed between the parties. A list of contract between the parties are at Annexure-4 series.

3. The petitioner had submitted earnest money in the form of certificate of deposits in the post-office which was adjusted against the 2% performance security submitted at the time of agreements. In pursuance of the agreements aforesaid, the petitioner started execution of the work. Thereafter, the papers of post-office deposit were sent for verification and it was reported that the same were not genuine. The respondent No.8 informed to the petitioner about that and the petitioner submitted papers of fixed deposits in the IDBI Bank and substituted the same with the postal securities and respondent No.8 returned the postal securities to the petitioner and kept the deposits of IDBI Bank as part of the performance security money. The respondent No.8 got the Bank papers verified and the same were found genuine.

4. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.12.2019 and the reminder on 04.01.2020. In compliance of the aforesaid show cause, the petitioner submitted its reply on 07.01.2020. Thereafter, all the abovementioned 118 contracts were cancelled by the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 vide order No.4 contained in Memo No.221 dated 21.01.2020 at Annexure-1.

5. The contracts were cancelled by the respondent No.8 mainly on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the contract by producing false papers of postal deposits which was against the provisions contained in the scheme of tender and affidavit of the petitioner.

Facts of CWJC No.4020 of 2020.

6. The same petitioner had entered into 26 agreements, being the lowest bidder, with respondent No.7-the Executive Engineer, PHED, Purnea Division. Copies of the agreements are at Annexure-3 series. In this case also, the petitioner had deposited earnest money in the form of deposits in the same post-office at Mithapur Branch, Patna. Here also, the documents of postal deposit were not found genuine and the petitioner substituted the same with the term deposits document in the IDBI Bank which are at Annexure-4 series and the respondents accepted the substitution of the document before issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner on 10.01.2020. On consideration that the documents of the earnest money in the form of deposit in the post-office were not genuine, by the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 contained in Order No.9 and Memo No.398 dated 22.01.2020 at Annexure-1. All the Twenty Six agreements were cancelled by the respondent No.7.

7. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical manner without assigning any reason. As such, the impugned orders are bad in law. Learned senior counsel submits that the reasons cannot be supplanted by counter affidavit or supplementary counter affidavit. Moreover, the impugned orders would reveal that the same have been passed on the dictate of superior authority. As such, the same are not based on personal satisfaction of the competent authority