Rescission of a contract without a prior show cause notice violates the principles of natural justice and the terms of the contract, rendering the impugned order void and null.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner have been claimed in the writ petition

"(i) For setting aside the office order contained in Letter No. 556 dated 17.07.2020 issued under the signature of Executive Engineer, Building Division Katihar, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna whereby and where under respondent authority rescinded the agreement bearing Agreement No. 05 SBD 2016/17 for "Construction of Katihar Engineering College, Katihar" in terms of SBD conditions in one line without issuing any show cause notice before rescindment and further fixed the date for final measurement in spite of the fact that due to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic the Government of India as well as Government of Bihar declared complete lockdown since 23rd march, 2020 till 5th June, 2020 and as such no work could be carried out during the lockdown period and even after lockdown it took some time to resume the work smoothly.

(ii) The petitioner further prays that after setting aside the aforementioned order of termination of agreement, the respondent authorities be directed to grant 6 months time to complete the balance work as the whatever delay occurred in execution of the work in question was beyond the control of the petitioner or due to lapses/latches on the part of respondents itself and the last four months time expired in the shut down due to Covid19 Pandemic.

(iii) For any other relief for which the petitioner may be deemed entitled to."

3. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner makes a short submission to assail the impugned order rescinding the contract, to the effect that no prior show cause notice was issued which was mandatorily required in terms of Clause 14 of the contract. Specific stand in this regard has been taken in paragraph 41 and 43 of the writ petition. He further relies on the judgment dated 07.08.2020 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 7130 of 2020 in petitioner's own case (Annexure-28), wherein after a detailed consideration of the matter it has been observed as follows

"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset, it would suffice to state that as far as the issue of maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, this Court finds that admittedly, no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner herein prior to passing of the impugned order dated 26.06.2020, rescinding the agreement in question, thus, not only Clause 14 of the Contract in question has been violated, but also the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence, the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions rendered in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation (Supra) and Popcorn Entertainment & Anr. (Supra). Thus, on this ground alone i.e. non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and violation of Clause 14 of the Contract, the impugned order dated 26.06.2020 is held to be void and is accordingly quashed, consequently, any subsequent action taken by the respondent authorities are also held to be null and void."

4. It has further been stated that orders to the above effect have also been passed in CWJC No. 7234 of 2020 as well as CWJCNo.7240 of 2020.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard. However, the contention of the petitioner has not been disputed and nothing in this regard has been pointed out from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

6. Having regard to the stand of the petitioner which remains uncontroverted, this Court is of the view