Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order No. 217 dated 17.05.2018, communicated to the petitioner vide Memo dated 17.05.2018 as also the office order contained in Order no. 18 dated 17.05.2018, whereby and whereunder the Agreement bearing No. 103/SBD/2015-16, executed between Infrastructure Development Authority and the petitioner herein, has been terminated and the petitioner has been blacklisted for three years under Clause 11(ka) (ii) and the earnest money deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited. The petitioner has further prayed for directing the respondents to pay the outstanding amount for the work executed as per the BOQ as also clear the payment with regard to the additional/extra work and items, apart from making payment of the security deposit and EMD with interest @ 10% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that a notice inviting tender, bearing no. 12/Ten/IDA/14 was published in the daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’, Patna Edition on 20.09.2014 for execution and completion of work namely "storm water drainage of Hajipur Industrial Area and EPIP", at an estimated cost of Rs. 1866.652 lacs, to be completed within 18 months. The last date for submission of application for issuance of tender form was 14.10.2014 and the date and time for opening tender bid was fixed as 16.10.2014 at 3.30 pm. The petitioner had submitted his tender and was finally selected as the successful bidder inasmuch as the petitioner had agreed to execute the work at 4.14% below the estimated cost of the Bill of Quantity and as such, the contract value was fixed at Rs. 17,74,30,637.75 inclusive of non-scheduled items. Thereafter, an agreement dated 31.07.2015 was executed in between the petitioner and the In-charge Director (Project & Implementation) Infrastructure Development Authority, Patna. According to the agreement, the work entrusted to the petitioner was to be completed within 18 months, although the letter of acceptance was issued on 02.02.2015 itself. After execution of the agreement and on deposit of Security Amount/Performance Guarantee, the Executive Engineer (BOT) issued a letter dated 03.08.2015 calling upon the petitioner to start execution of work and make available the bar chart etc. and the same was made a part of the agreement, as such, the period of 18 months for completion of work has to be counted w.e.f. 03.08.2015. It is stated that though the Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 14.09.2015, had again issued certain directions, however on account of reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the petitioner could not start work in as much as it was stopped by the local administration from executing the work on account of meeting of the Prime Minister on 16.10.2016 and fixing of the place of strong room pertaining to the ongoing election work at EPIP, thus the petitioner had duly communicated these facts to the respondents vide letter dated 12.10.2015.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the course of execution of the work, the petitioner had faced several hindrances besides stoppage of work for about three and half months on account of the dispute raised by the industrialists regarding the level of drain in industrial area and casting of slab. The petitioner was then called upon to furnish detailed reasons for the delay in execution of the work whereupon, the petitioner had submitted a detailed report containing the reasons for delay in executing the project, copy whereof can be found at Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner is stated to have, from time to time, by various communications, pointed out the difficulty in execution of the work including such extra and additional work which did not find place in the approved estimate or as part of Bill of Quantity (BOQ), however, the respondent authorities did not pay any heed to the problems being faced by the petitioner in execution of the work. It has been further sta