JUDGMENT :

1. The legality and validity of a letter dated 15.09.2020 by which the contract of the petitioner has been terminated is the subject matter of this writ petition. However, before going to the issue to be decided, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are recorded in brief.

2. A Notice Inviting Tender was published on 22.11.2016, for Construction of S. R. Thaosen Media Centre at Haflong in the district of the Dima Hasao. It is the case of the petitioner that upon participation in the said tender process, the petitioner was duly selected and accordingly, a Letter of Acceptance dated 06.02.2017 was issued to him. According to the petitioner, after completion of the necessary formalities, he had started the execution of the work and had constructed 150 numbers of piles and 2 slabs including substantial brick works. As per the petitioner, he has completed about 45% of the work.

3. It is, however, the case of the petitioner that during the execution of the work, there were several hindrances, including non availability of Supervising Officer, non-payment of running account bills and various other circumstances as a result of which, the petitioner could not proceed with the work in a smooth manner. The petitioner specifically contends that the Department was fully aware of the difficulties.

4. Over and above the aforesaid difficulties, the petitioner has alleged that the pandemic had also adversely affected the execution of the work by a major way. Since the petitioner was prevented by sufficient reasons including the onslaught of the pandemic, he could not execute the work further as a result of which, vide the impugned letter dated 15.09.2020, the work was terminated and the petitioner was directed to attend the work site on 23.09.2020 for recording up-to-date measurement of the works done towards finalisation of the contract. As indicated above, it is this termination letter which has been questioned in this writ petition.

5. I have heard Shri K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri D.J. Das, learned counsel whereas the respondent -Dima Hasao Autonomous Council is represented by Shri R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel. The materials placed before this court has been duly perused.

6. Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the impugned letter dated 15.09.2020 is not sustainable in law inasmuch as, it was not preceded by any opportunity or notice. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the impugned letter dated 15.09.2020 is apparently issued in a high-handed manner without following the due process of law. It is also submitted that as per information gathered, the said termination has been done on extraneous consideration whereby an instruction dated 11.09.2020 issued by the P.A. to the Chief Executive Member, North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council had played a major role.

7. Elaborating his argument, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a jurisdictional error which would go to the root of the matter. He submits that while the work order is issued by the Additional Chief Engineer, who is the employer, the termination order dated 15.09.2020 has been issued by the Executive Engineer. The learned Senior Counsel submits that as per the contract governing the parties, such powers are vested only with the Additional Chief Engineer and on this ground alone, impugned order is unsustainable in law.

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were sufficient reasons and grounds for not being able to complete the work in time and those factors have been wholly ignored before passing the impugned order of termination dated 15.09.2020.

9. Per contra, Shri R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council, NCHAC submits that none of the grounds projected by the petitioner are tenable either in law or on facts. He submits that as per the Notice Inviting Tender dated 22.11.2016, the d