In this writ petition, two Orders dated 18.10.2012 and 18.10.2013 are under challenge.

2. Order dated 18.10.2012 has been issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Daltonganj, whereby, the Agreement bearing No. F2/02/2009-10 has been cancelled and consequently, the earnest money and the Security Deposit has been forfeited.

3. The order dated 18.10.2013 has been issued by the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Division,-cum-Chief Executive Officer, JSRRDA, Ranchi, by which, it has been ordered that until and unless the work allotted to the Contractors is completed by them, they will not be allotted any further work by the Department.

4. The petitioner-contractor has approached this court since he is aggrieved by these impugned orders.

5. This petitioner was awarded a work of construction and maintenance of Road under Prime Minister Gram Sarak Yojna (for short PMGSY) Package JH1701(VIth). An agreement was entered between the petitioner and the Authority for construction and maintenance of Mohammadganj to Mnahudand (22.00 km.). The said agreement has been brought on record by the petitioner.

6. It is alleged by the Department that inspite of allotment of work in favour of the petitioner, and even after execution of the agreement, the petitioner has not completed the work. Having no other alternative, the Department has issued the impugned order dated 18.10.2012, whereby, the Agreement bearing No. F2/02/2009-10 has been cancelled and consequently, the earnest money and the Security Deposit have been forfeited. Again on 18.10.2013, another order was issued by the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Division-cum-Chief Executive Officer, JSRRDA, Ranchi, by which, it has been ordered that until and unless the allotted work to a particular contractor is not completed, the said contractor will not be allotted any further work by the Department, which amounts to blacklisting.

7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders are absolutely bad and it shows non-application of mind. He further submits that the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the State Authority could not have been cancelled in a mechanical manner. He submits that it is the State, which is at fault and only for the latches of the State, the petitioner was unable to complete the work. There is forest land over which, the road had to be constructed and it was the duty of State-authority to obtain no objection certificate and clearance from the Forest Department. The State, without obtaining necessary clearance, was pressurizing the petitioner to complete the work, which was not possible for the petitioner. It is also submitted that several letters were written by the petitioner bringing to the notice to the concerned authority that in absence of No Objection Certificate as well as Clearance Certificate from the Forest Department, it was impossible for them to continue the construction work. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the inaction on the part of the State authority. He submits that on the aforesaid background the termination order is absolutely bad.

8. On the point of Blacklisting, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 18.10.2013 is absolutely bad and it also shows non-application of mind. He further submits that without giving any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order of blacklisting has been passed. He further submits that, the petitioner-company by virtue of the impugned order dated 18.10.2013 has been blacklisted forever as he cannot complete the allotted work now because of cancellation of the agreement. He lastly submits that both the impugned orders are absolutely bad and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.

9. Counsel for the State submits that the order of debarment is absolutely justified and so is the order by which, the agreement has been cancelled. It has been submitted that admittedly t