JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-M/s. Ummed Construction Company, through its Proprietor Ummed Bishnoi, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“A. By an appropriate writ, order, or directions, the order dated 07.01.2020 (Annex.9), recovery notice dated 28.01.2020 (Annex.11) and any notice, order or communication already passed or passed during pendency of the writ petition in pursuance to the order dated 07.01.2020 (Annex.9) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, any NIT if already issued or issued during the pendency of the writ petition in pursuance to the Order dated 07.01.2020 (Annex.9) for getting the remaining work done at the risk and cost of the petitioner company may kindly be quashed and set aside.

C. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents may kindly be directed to execute the agreement/contract in pursuance to the work order dated 15.12.2018 (Annex.2) and also to make available the lay out plans for the awarded work.

D. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents may kindly be restrained from taking any action against the petitioner company for stopping the work, awarded in pursuance to the order dated 15.12.2018 (Annex.2).”

2. With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, the matter is heard finally and is being decided today itself.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a proprietor firm, applied in the NIT No.2018-2019/128 for the work of ‘Providing Laying Jointing and Commissioning of various sizes HDPE Pipeline, other allied works under UWSS Sirohi against Old and Polluted Pipe Line.’ The petitioner-company being the lowest bidder, was issued the work order dated 15.12.2018 with a condition that the petitioner-company should execute the formal agreement with a non-judicial stamp of Rs.12,180/-on receipt of this letter and further that the date of commencement of the work will be the date of issuance of the order i.e. 15.12.2018 and the date of completion was the date after two months from the date of commencement, meaning thereby that the petitioner-company was required to complete the said work within a period of two months.

4. In the work order, it was also mentioned that the work is to be started within ten days of the passing of the order or else, it will be get done from the other party at the risk and cost of the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company immediately contacted the office of the respondent-Executive Engineer for execution of formal agreement, but due to unavoidable circumstances and the occupation of the office in some other work, formal agreement was not executed.

5. The petitioner-company started working in pursuance of the work order dated 15.12.2018. The formal agreement was not executed even after about one and a half month and therefore, the petitioner-company stopped the work and requested the respondent to execute the formal agreement.

6. The respondents issued communication dated 07.02.2019 and 14.02.2019 (Annexure-3) to the petitioner-company to complete the work. The petitioner approached the respondents and requested them to execute the formal agreement in order to start the work but no action whatsoever was taken in this regard.

The petitioner-company made a communication dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure-4) to the respondents that the rates which are being reserved are not proper and therefore, the work order may be cancelled. The petitioner-company again started the work upon the assurance of the respondents that soon, the agreement would be executed but when the agreement was not executed, the petitioner-company again stopped the work on 14.06.2019.

7. The petitioner-company was issued several notices dated 16.09.2019, 19.09.2019, 14.10.2019 and 22.10.2019 (Annexure-5), mentioning in it that the pet