JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged an order of blacklisting issued by the respondent-Authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that throughout the entire period during which the petitioner did the concerned work for the respondents, the contract of the petitioner was never terminated by the respondent-Authorities. During the pendency of the writ petition, a substantial portion of the dues of the petitioner has also been cleared. Hence, there was no occasion for the respondent-Authorities to issue the impugned order of blacklisting.

2. It is next argued that Clause 10 of the agreement between the parties contemplates larger penalty than damages to be imposed only in cases where the delay occasioned for performing the work is more than five weeks. The delay occasioned by the petitioner being much less, the larger penalty of blacklisting could not have been imposed.

3. Clause 18 of the agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) clearly stipulates that the present agreement sets forth the entire understanding and agreement of the parties as to the subject matter of the agreement and supersedes all oral and written agreement or understanding b