JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

2. On 21.10.2020, initially when the matter was taken up, the Court had directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

3. On 17.03.2021, the Court had observed as under:

“The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Shri S.D. Sanjay has submitted that the work/contract in question was earlier also allotted to a contractor and an agreement was executed in the year 2010, however, the said agreement was terminated on account of non-completion of the work by the said contractor and thereafter the petitioner was granted the contract/ work in question and an agreement was executed on 11.7.2017. It is further submitted that the petitioner has completed about 80% of the work in question, however, on account of certain impediments the work could not be completed in time but now the petitioner is ready to complete the remaining work within a reasonable period on the old rate and term, as prescribed in the agreement in question dated 11.7.2017. In this connection, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to a report of the Executive Engineer submitted to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Creation, Water Resources Department, Patna dated 11.09.2020, wherein recommendation has been made to recall the decision regarding rescinding of the contract of the petitioner. It is thus submitted that the respondents be directed to consider recalling the decision regarding rescinding of the contract of the petitioner and the petitioner be allowed to complete the remaining work since the same would prevent wastage of public money.

Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned AAG-4, has submitted in response that instructions would be required to be sought from the respondents as to whether they are ready to permit the petitioner to complete the remaining work since the agreement in question has been terminated vide order dated 31.8.2020 on account of breach of the terms and conditions of contract by the petitioner and on account of suppression of facts by the petitioner.

Having considered the rival contentions of the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the parties, I deem it fit and proper to grant time to the respondents to inform this Court as to whether they are willing to allow the petitioner to complete the balance work within a stipulated time frame, on the old rates. If need be, the respondents may hold parleys amongst themselves as also with the representatives of the petitioner.

List this case on 12.04.2021.”

4. On 9th May, 2022, we had passed the following order:

“We notice that interim protection was granted in favour of petitioner on 21.10.2020.

From the order of 17.03.2021, it appears that allegedly petitioner completed 80 per cent of the work.

On ‘special mention’ the matter stands listed before this Bench.

Having briefly heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that today three options are available with the parties and each one without prejudice to their respective rights and contentions:

(a) A fresh show cause notice be issued by the appropriate authority to the petitioner to be responded to within the time bound period and decide expeditiously.

(b) The petition be heard on merits.

(c) The petitioner be allowed to complete the remaining work within the time bound period without any further pecuniary benefit on the same terms and conditions moreso the consideration contained therein.

Let the learned counsel for the State obtain instructions.

List this case tomorrow i.e. 10.05.2022.

Mr. Anjani Kumar AAG-4 states that at this point of time 3rd option is not open.

Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner under instruction states that 3rd option is acceptable to the petitioner.”

5. On 11th May, 2022, we had passed the following order:

“We have perused the supplementary counter affidavit dated 10.05.2022 filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Evidently, 67 per cent of the work stands completed by the petitio