ORDER :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in letter no. C.E/657/19 dated 07.01.2009 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 – Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Limited, Ranchi, whereby the security money deposited by the petitioner in terms with the agreement executed for construction of 16 classrooms of school building at Police Training Centre, Hazaribagh has been forfeited and the petitioner has also been blacklisted. Further prayer has been made for quashing the Tender Notice no. 12/2010-11 dated 01.10.2010 and 07.10.2010 by reasons of which tender for the work earlier allotted to the petitioner has been reissued. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the work and consequently to make payment of all the due amount relating to the said work lying before the respondents.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that a tender notice was issued by the respondents vide Tender Notice No. 08/2007-08 for construction of 16 classrooms of school building at Police Training Centre, Hazaribagh. The petitioner submitted the tender and was finally allotted the work and an agreement being agreement no. 36 F2/2007-08 dated 22.01.2008 for estimated value of Rs. 65,72,605/- was executed. The work was to be completed within six months i.e., by 21.07.2008. The petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent authorities in writing to supply the sanctioned map etc. as per the terms of the agreement, but the same was not responded. On the contrary, the respondent no. 4 – Executive Engineer, Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Ltd. Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh vide letter dated 12.11.2008 blamed the petitioner for committing delay in execution of the work and imposed a penalty of 1% on the amount of agreement. Again, vide letter dated 24.12.2008, a penalty to the extent of 3% was imposed upon the petitioner due to non-completion of work in time which, according to the petitioner, was imposed without issuance of any show-cause notice and without considering its request for supply of a sanctioned map. Finally, the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order dated 07.01.2009 by forfeiting the security money deposited by the petitioner and also blacklisting it for non-completion of the work in question within the time frame.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of repeated request made by the petitioner, the sanctioned site map was not provided to it which attributed to the delay in execution of the work. The petitioner also made several request before the respondent authorities to revise the rate of work, but the same remained unresponded by them. Though the delay in completion of the work occurred due to inaction of the respondents, yet the petitioner has been blamed for the same without any rhyme or reason. Even after issuance of the impugned letter dated 07.01.2009, the petitioner preferred a detailed representation on 19.01.2009 mentioning all the facts in detail that since the map was provided to it on 10.12.2008 after much delay the said work could not be completed within the stipulated period. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the impugned letter dated 07.01.2009, the petitioner was neither issued any show-cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to it by the respondent authorities. In fact, the petitioner was always ready and willing to complete the work and if any delay occurred in completion of the work, the same can only be attributed to the inaction of the respondent authorities.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has delayed the work alleging that the sanctioned site map was not provided to it, whereas the actual fact is that the petitioner was not at all interested in sincerely executing the work within the stipulate