Heard the parties finally.

2. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during the contracted period, a letter dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure-3) has been issued debarring the petitioner from taking part in any other work of the respondents, which amounts to blacklisting without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submitted that slow progress of the work was not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner, rather respondents themselves are responsible for the slow progress of work. He relied on 1994 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 699 (Southern Painters vs. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Another) and (1978)3 Supreme Court Cases 36 (Joseph Vilangandan vs. The Executive Engineer, (PWD), Ernakulam and Others). He further submitted that in spite of repeated requests, forest clearance has not been obtained by the respondents, which was one of the reasons apart from naxal activities etc. for not completing the work as per the schedule.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the counter-affidavit, submitted that the progress of the work has been very slow since the beginning wh