JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for all the respondents.

2. The background facts leading to the institution of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be narrated, in brief, as follows:

2.1. Pursuant to a bidding process initiated by a Tender Document dated 30.12.2013 for a contract-work viz. ‘Fencing of Experiment Farm at Sarutari in the Kamrup district, Assam’ [‘the Contract-Work’ for short] the petitioner on being emerged as the successful bidder, was issued a Work Order dated 19.03.2014 whereby the Contract-Work stood awarded to him. At the time of the award of Contract-Work by Work Order dated 19.03.2014, the petitioner was asked to execute a Contract Agreement and to deposit an amount of Rs. 28,850/- towards Security Deposit, being 5% of the total quoted amount for the Contract-Work after deduction of Rs. 24,000/- remitted towards Earnest Money Deposit [EMD] for the Contract-Work. A Contract Agreement was thereafter, executed on 28.03.2014. The Contract-Work was to be completed within 4 [four] months from the fourteenth day of the date of the Work Order i.e. on or before 27.07.2014.

2.2 According to the respondent Rubber Board authorities, as averred in the counter affidavit, the execution of the Contract-Work got delayed allegedly due to factors attributable solely to the petitioner. With such contentions, the petitioner was served a Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2017 whereby it was indicated to the petitioner that the respondent Rubber Board was in contemplation to terminate the Contract Agreement dated 28.03.2014, executed between them, with the condition that the respondent Rubber Board would execute the balance part of the Contract-Work at the risk and cost of the petitioner and penalty would be imposed on him as per the tender conditions. By serving the Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2017, the petitioner was asked to provide his explanation, if any, to the Show Cause Notice within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the Show Cause Notice.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that in response to the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner submitted a Reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2017, on 30.01.2017.

3. Aggrieved by the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and non-disbursal of the petitioner’s running account bill, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition seeking setting aside of the Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2017. Directions in the nature of mandamus are also sought to the respondent Rubber Board authorities to release the running account bill in respect of the portion of works completed by the petitioner in connection with the Contract-Work, as per rates shown by the petitioner including costs for additional works, and to allow the petitioner to complete the balance part of the Contract-Work and to release payment for such works including costs for additional items.

4. On institution of the writ petition, notices were issued to the respondent authorities by Order dated 01.03.2017. While issuing notices, it was observed that it shall not be a bar for the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the Representation i.e. the Reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 30.01.2017 during the pendency of the writ petition. The respondent Rubber Board authorities have filed their counter affidavit on 20.07.2021 annexing therewith an Order of Termination dated 03.04.2017 [Annexure-3] whereby the respondent Rubber Board authorities had terminated the Contract Agreement dated 28.03.2014 with immediate effect.

5. By the Order of Termination, the petitioner was sought to be apprised that the Contract-Work allotted to him, as per the Contract Agreement dated 28.03.2014, had been terminated with immediate effect. The Earnest Money Deposit [EMD] and the Security Deposit were also forfeited. It had been intimated that the balance part of the Contract-Work would be done at the risk a