( 1 ) BY this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order of termination of tender-contract and also, the order of placing his name in the Black List passed on 24-11-2003, subsequent to the termination order dated 28-07-2003, inter-alia contending that both the orders are illegal, unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice and unsustainable.

( 2 ) THE respondent-authority invited tenders for the construction work of Modipur - Jotana Road. The petitioners tender offer was accepted and accordingly, the petitioner had deposited the amount as required followed by Work Order dated 25-01-2003 with the specific stipulation to complete the said contract within a spell of 8 months from the date of commencement of work, which was considered as 30-01-2000. Thus, the date of the completion was 29-09-2000.

( 3 ) THE petitioner had commenced the work of construction on the limited site. It has been the case of the petitioner that the respondent-authority could not give the possession of the remaining sites, as a result of which, further progress could not be made. The petitioner addressed the respondent-authorities letters dated 21-07-2000, 01-10-2000, 22-02-2001, but unsuccessfully.

( 4 ) IT has, also, been the case of the petitioner that a big ditch nalia was to be filled up to make up the road and for that, huge quantity of earth was required to be taken from the nearby land. The respondents could not arrange for such land from which the earth could be taken out and they realized that such work was required to be added in the contract as `extra item as earth was to be brought from long distance. Respondent No. 1, as such, had made a proposal for extra item but no final decision could be taken.

( 5 ) ON account of failure on the part of the respondents, as alleged, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 14-05-2001, pointing out the loss being caused to the petitioner. It was, therefore, pointed that the contract has come to an end due to the failure of performance on the part of the respondents and therefore, no responsibility would remain with regard to the contract work. Final Bill Preparation was also requested. The petitioner did insist for order for extra work to be carried out, without which, work would not be carried out. Again, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 23-01-2002 to consider all the failures and also to consider the petitioner as relieved from the responsibilities of the contractual obligation.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER, arbitration proceedings were initiated and they were pending at the time when impugned orders came to be recorded. In short, it is the main contention of the petitioners that impugned orders are passed without following principles of natural justice and, therefore, they are bad.

( 7 ) WE have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. We have, also, dispassionately, examined the entire record together with relevant proposition of law. The contention of the respondents has been that dispute involves complex factual facts requiring investigation and, therefore, the writ jurisdiction is not appropriate remedy. It is, therefore, contended that a regular suit ought to have been filed for the settlement of disputes.

( 8 ) IT is borne out from the record that the respondents had served the petitioner with several notices for the purpose of expeditious progress in the work. Notices given by the respondents were even not replied by the petitioner. Even the petitioner was called to remain personally present at the time of measurement of the work carried out at site. He did not remain present. Therefore, the respondent had exercised the alternative to proceed against the petitioner ex parte. He was, also, called in person by the officer of the District Panchayat to explain his case and to have measurements taken at the site.

( 9 ) IT is, specifically, found that the petitioner was given requisite and sufficient opportuni