The requirement of a show-cause notice before imposing penalties is essential to fulfill the principles of natural justice.

I.A. No. 582 of 2015

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to file fresh writ petition challenging the proceeding before the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No. 01/2008-09 and Certificate Case No. 02/2008-09.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 582 of 2015 is withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge proceeding in Certificate Case No. 01/2008-09 and Certificate Case No. 02/2008-09.

W.P.(C) No. 2749 of 2011

Seeking quashing of letter dated 15.02.2008, letter dated 09.06.2008 and memo dated 24.09.2010, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner-company is a ClassI contractor registered with the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, which was awarded three work contracts and accordingly, Agreement no. 01F2/2004-05 and Agreement no. 02F2/200405 both dated 09.09.2004 and Agreement No. 30F2/ 2004-2005 dated 06.03.2005 were executed. The petitioner-company started execution of the work under contract however, due to frequent interference by the unsocial elements and non-cooperation of the respondents in not providing protection, the execution of the work was substantially affected. Compelled, the petitioner lodged First Information Report being Jaridih P.S. Case No. 36/2005 dated 02.04.2005 under Sections 323, 307, 386 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner was surprisingly issued show-cause notice dated 04.05.2005 for alleged slow progress of the work and vide letter dated 09.06.2008, agreement was terminated by the respondent no. 5. The representation of the petitioner for referring the matter to a retired Hon'ble Judge for arbitration was also not accepted by the department and vide letter dated 24.09.2010, the petitioner-company was debarred from participating in any tender in future.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner-company did not complete the work in time and in fact, it committed fundamental breach of the terms of the contract. The allegation of non-cooperation by the department has been denied and it is stated that remaining work under the agreements have been smoothly completed by another agency, even before the stipulated time.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that work under agreements has since been completed he would confine the prayer in the writ petition in so far as, order dated 24.09.2010 debarring the petitioner-company from participating in future tenders, is concerned.

6. As against the above, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that, the petitioner failed to execute the work in question and therefore, the agreements were terminated. Several notices were issued to the petitioner-company and it was granted sufficient opportunity to complete the work however, it failed to execute the work in question and therefore, a decision has been taken to debar the petitioner-company from participating in future contract.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

8. The facts in so far as, the termination of the agreements and debarring the petitioner-company from participating in future contract are concerned, are not in dispute. After the agreements were terminated vide letter dated 09.06.2008, a decision was communicated to the petitioner-company vide letter dated 24.09.2010 debarring it from participating in the future contract. The perusal of letter dated 24.09.2010 would indicate that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner-company, before a decision debarring the petitioner-company from participating in future contract is concerned.

9. It is well settled that an order of debarment from participating in future contract would entail civil as well as evil consequences to the petitioner-company. In so far as, te