The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard before rescinding a contract, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. This intra court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 20.01.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3304 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, while dismissing the writ petition the decision taken by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Hazaribagh as contained in Letter dated 17.02.2014 appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition by which the contract entered in between the parties has been rescinded with a recommendation to blacklist the writ petitioner firm, has refused to interfere with the impugned order.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to be enumerated, read as under:

The Rural Works Department invited a tender for construction of road from Sukul Katha to Dudhi Garha in which the writ petitioner along with other bidders have participated in which the writ petitioner has been found successful and an agreement No. 36F2 of 2011-12 has been executed in between the writ petitioner and the Rural Works Department on 17.10.2011.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that although the agreement was executed on 17.10.2011 but the work order was issued in the month of November, 2011 and immediately thereafter, the writ petitioner company started the construction work.

The writ petitioner firm, although had to face difficulties in completion of the construction of the work, has completed 70% of the work. Thereafter, for construction of road, bitumen was required which was to be purchased from the government company like Indian Oil Limited or Hindustan Petroleum etc. for which a permit was required to be issued by the government department but the respondent did not issued permit due to which the rest of the work was not completed.

The respondent no.3 vide letter dated 04.01.2014 directed the writ petitioner to appear before him by 15.01.2014 for signing final bill as the department has already published notice in daily newspaper Hindustan dated 30.11.2013 whereby the writ petitioner was informed to sign the final bill on 04.12.2013. It was further informed that if the writ petitioner does not sign the final bill, it will be presumed that it has accepted the measurement and the department will recommend for its blacklisting.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that several letter were issued to the respondents to provide permit to enable it to obtain bitumen from the government company and also requested to protect the partners and the employees from the hand of extremist with a further request to provide land in between 4th to 5th km which is Raiyati land and raiyats are obstructing the writ petitioner from connecting the construction over the said land, but, the respondents did not provide with any permit and security.

The respondents vide letter dated 04.01.2014 informed the writ petitioner that the agreement shall be rescinded and the writ petitioner would be black listed if it failed to sign the final bill. The writ petitioner vide letter dated 17.10.2014 requested the respondent no.2 to extend the period for completing the work for three months which was duly extended.

Thereafter, the respondent no.3 took steps for cancellation of the agreement and directed the writ petitioner to sign the final bill by 04.12.2013 and vide order dated 17.02.2014 has rescinded the agreement and also forfeited the security deposit and also recommended for its black listing without giving the writ petitioner with any opportunity of hearing.

3. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that even though there is latches on the part of the respondent for not providing bitumen and other infrastructure but without taking into consideration the fact that the work has been initiated and 70% of the work has been completed, bill has been submitted periodically, the money has been disbursed but due to the non-supply of the bitumen, the work could not have been completed in entirety.

4. The writ