JUDGMENT

B.P. RAY, J. — The petitioner has filed the present writ application being aggrieved by the decision of the State Govern¬ment in issuing a notice inviting Tender for completing the bal¬ance work awarded to the petitioner on 19.11.2004, vide Agreement No.305 F2 of 2004-05 dated 19.11.2004 for construction of H.L. Bridge over river Luna with 30 mtrs. approach on either side of Chandol-Danpur Road. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to close the contract without levy of penalty and direct the State Government to pay all its dues with reference to Agreement No.305F2 dated 19.11.2004 including escalation, which is entitled to under the agreement.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a super class con¬tractor engaged in the business of civil construction like con¬struction of roads, bridges etc. The Government of Orissa in the Works Department invited application for construction of H.L. Bridge over river ‘Luna’ at Danpur of Chandol - Danpur Road with 30 mtrs. approach. The petitioner submitted its tender and since his tender was found to be the lowest, a work order was issued in his favour on 19.11.2004. On the same date, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer, Kendrapara (R&B) Division for executing the said work. The work was to commence on 19.11.2004 and was to be completed on 18.05.2006.

3. In course of execution of the work, the petitioner faced the following difficulties :-

(i) The land for pier well No.P7 had not been acquired by the State Government, because of which the local people are obstruct¬ing the progress of the work.

(ii) The design and drawings of the wells were not handed over to the petitioner.

(iii) Well cap bottom levels were not fixed.

(iv) Since well cap bottom level of abutment well AR and two canal abutment wells AR1 and AL1 were not finalized, the progress of these wells were being hampered.

(v) The well curb shuttering and steel were getting submerged because the water level of the river was rising by two to three feet due to opening of the sluice gate of the Anicut by the Water Resources Department.

4. The petitioner ventilated his aforesaid grievances/difficulties to the opposite parties, vide its various communications dated 08.02.2005, 22.03.2005, 25.04.2005, 29.11.2005, 10.12.2005, 11.02.2006, 13.03.2006 and 17.04.2006 vide Annexures-4 to 13 respectively. No steps were however, taken by the opposite parties to mitigate the hardship which the petitioner was facing. Consequently, the petitioner could not progress with the work as per schedule.

5. On 17.04.2006, the petitioner made his first applica¬tion for extension of time to complete the work. While his appli¬cation was pending, on 22.06.2006 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Opposite Party No.1 as to why steps shall not be taken against the petitioner for disproportionate progress in completion of work by the stipulated date. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 03.07.2006 indicating therein that the delay in completion of the work was on account of delay in supply of drawing and design, non-acquisition of land on either side of the bridge and the design of Pier Wells were approved and communicated on 16.12.2005 i.e. 13 months after the date of issuance of the work order and execution of the agreement, delay in taking decision for fixation of well cap bottom level and unusual rising of water level during working season due to opening of sluice gates of Anicut by Water Resources Department. On receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the proceedings pursuant to notice dated 22.06.2006 was dropped by the Executive Engineer, Opposite Party No.2.

6. The Executive Engineer, Opposite Party No.2 recommended the application of the petitioner for extension of time on 22.08.2006, i.e. two months after the request for extension was made by the petitioner. On 02.05.2007, vide Annexure-19, the Superintending Engineer, Opposite Party No.3 recommended to the Chie