The main legal point established is that in cases where the action of the respondents is illegal, in violation of the principles of natural justice, and where fundamental rights have been violated, a writ petition would be maintainable, even in contractual matters.

JUDGMENT :

RAJAN GUPTA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.03.2020, issued by the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Executive Engineer-cum-Project Manager, District Project Management Unit, Patna, whereby and whereunder the agreement being SBD-10(WB)/2016-17 for execution of “Jamalpur Chaksarwar Single Gram Pipe Water Supply Scheme” has been cancelled and a decision has been taken to forfeit the security deposit amount as also to make recovery on risk and cost basis from the petitioner for the cost to be incurred in construction of water tank. Though, the petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to make payment of the outstanding dues pertaining to the work executed by him, however the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has only pressed the prayer of the petitioner regarding quashing of the order dated 18.03.2020, whereby and whereunder agreement in question has been rescinded.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded the agreement in question, pursuant to issuance of N.I.T., whereafter the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent no. 5 on 09.01.2017. The work order was also issued on 09.01.2017 to the petitioner.

3. Shorn of the details, it would suffice to state that allegations and counter allegations have been levelled by the parties against each other with regard to the pace/ progress of the work required to be executed by the petitioner herein. While, it is the case of the petitioner that on account of serious impediments, the work could not progress in the manner it should have been, however, on the contrary, it is the allegation of the respondents that firstly, the petitioner did not maintain the requisite pace of work and secondly, the petitioner did not construct the water tower according to the design and drawing approved by the competent authority, hence the petitioner was directed to construct the water tower in accordance with the design and drawing approved by the competent authority, vide letter dated 12.03.2020, failing which, recovery on risk and cost basis would be made from the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had failed to comply with the said directions issued by the respondent-authorities, resulting in the Executive Engineer, PHED Division, Patna East, Patna issuing a show cause notice dated 29.02.2020 to the petitioner herein calling upon the petitioner to submit show cause reply within a week as to why the agreement be not terminated and the security amount be not forfeited. The petitioner is stated to have received the said notice dated 29.02.2020 only on 07.03.2020, during the period of Holi festival, hence the petitioner had made a request vide letter dated 13.03.2020 to allow further one week’s time for filing its reply. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have filed a detailed show cause reply dated 17.03.2020, which is annexed as Annexure-16 to present writ petition, however the agreement in question has been rescinded by the impugned order dated 18.03.2020

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Sri P.K. Shahi, has submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 would show that the same is cryptic, has not dealt with the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner company and merely in one line, the detailed show cause reply filed by the petitioner has been stated to be unsatisfactory. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 does not contain any cogent, clear and succinct reasons for rescinding the agreement in question. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 is fit to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the respondent no. 5 for fresh consideration.

5. Per contra, though the learned counsel for the respondent State has supported the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 and has submitted that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy under Clause 25 of the Standing Bidding Document