1. The petitioner, who is the registered Contractor under the respondent has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of cancellation of the contract dated 18.9.2009. According to the petitioner, the respondent Municipality passed a Resolution as early as on 27.7.2009 stating that as there was six incomplete pending works, no new work should be allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the above said Resolution in the earlier Writ Petition No.16755 of 2009. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court, at the request of the petitioner, passed an order directing the respondent to consider his representation dated 7.8.2009 and pass orders on merits. Pursuant to the order, according to the petitioner, the respondent gave a detailed reply to the representation of the petitioner by their letter dated 9.9.2009 giving details of the six pending works, for which the petitioner also sent a further reply (though stated in the affidavit, not produced in the typed set and no date is being mentioned). Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed on 18.9.2009, which according to the petitioner is not in accordance with law, as the provision stated in the