Point of Law: Tender - Contract agreement has been cancelled - Seeking quash of impugned order and seeks grant of extension of time for completion of allotted - It is more than apparent that the decision taken by respondent Department in cancelling the contract allotted to the petitioner was certainly not irrational in any manner whatsoever or intended to favour anyone. This decision, apart from being lawful and sound, appears to have been taken by the respondents in view of the failure of the petitioner to execute the contract allotted to it even after grant of substantial extension of time in its favour by the respondents. Hence do not find any merit in this petition

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, by medium of the instant petition, has craved the indulgence of this Court in granting it the following reliefs:

“(a) A Writ of Certiorari, seeking quashment of impugned order dated 24.12.2020, issued under endorsement no. 180078/2014/174/E8, whereby the contract agreement allotted in favour of petitioner vide CA No. CESZ-16/2018-19 SPECIAL REPAIR TO DISPERSAL AREA AT SHARIEFABAD has been cancelled.

(b) A Writ of Mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to consider the representation/ request of petitioner for grant of extension of time for completion of allotted contract in upcoming working season, i.e., April-May, 2021, so that the quality and standard of work is maintained.

(c) A writ of prohibition, thereby prohibiting the respondents from allotting the contract in favour of any other contractor, as the petitioner has already installed the machinery and material on spot.

(d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the attending circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

2. The material facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition, as stated by the petitioner in its petition, are that the petitioner claims to be a registered Contractor for the purpose of executing different kinds of construction works in the respondent organization. It is stated that the petitioner, upon successful participation in the tendering process initiated by the respondents with regard to ‘Special Repairs to Dispersal Area’ at Sharifabad, for an amount of Rs.1, 36,25,500.00/-, was allotted the contract for the same in terms of allotment No. CESZ-16/2018-19. In terms of the contract agreement, the date of commencement of the work for Phase-I was fixed as 8th of April, 2019 with the date of completion as 7th of July, 2019. Likewise, for commencement of Phase-II work, the date was fixed as 8th of July 2019 and date of completion as 7th of October, 2019. The petitioner, however, claims that after taking over the site for commencement of work, the respondents referred various samples for ‘Bitumen’ testing to the National Institute of Technology (NIT), as a result whereof, the commencement of work on the spot was not possible for the petitioner. Thereafter, as stated, the petitioner, for various reasons not attributable to it, could not commence the work on spot. Accordingly, the respondents, by virtue of communication dated 15th of October, 2020, requested the National Institute of Technology, Srinagar for conducting testing of materials which was received on 29th of October, 2020. In the meanwhile, on 16th of September, 2020, the petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed representation before the respondents, thereby apprising them that since the material test reports have been submitted to the National Institute of Technology, Srinagar, but the report thereof is awaited, coupled with restrictions imposed by the Government on account of COVID-19 Pandemic, as such, extension in time may be granted to the petitioner for completion of the work allotted. It is pleaded that a legal notice was also served upon the respondents highlighting therein all the genuine and justified reasons which led to non-completion of the allotted contract/ work on spot, but same was not taken in consideration by the respondents and, instead, the respondents issued communication dated 16th of November, 2020, whereby the representation of the petitioner came to be rejected. Thereafter, the respondents are stated to have issued communication dated 5th of December, 2020, whereby the petitioner was granted last and final opportunity to accelerate the progress of work within a period of 15 days, failing which the contract agreement was threatened to be cancelled. It is contended that since the work in question relates to macadamization of Dispersal area and the temperature in December was not feasible for such macadamisation at all, still the