JUDGMENT

A. K. GANGULY, C.J. : The order of termination of contract by order dated 18.7.2007 vide Annexure-13 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Even though the said order of cancellation was passed, the authorities have made it clear that the said termination will take effect on and from 18.10.2007 and in the meantime the petitioner has been allowed to continue the work.

2. The material facts of the case are that opposite party No. 1, viz., Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, issued a notice inviting tender on 18.11.2005. In response to the same, the petitioner dropped its bid on 23.12.2005, which was within the scheduled time as extended by opposite party No. 1. After accepting the petitioner’s bid opposite party No. 1 issued a work order on 5.3.2006 in petitioner’s favour asking it to complete the work within a period of three years with effect from 3.3.2006. When the petitioner was carrying on its work opposite party No. 1 certificated that the petitioner had completed substantial portion of the work during the period from 3.3.2006 to 28.5.2006.

3. Some time thereafter the petitioner was asked to show cause as Chief Vigilance Officer of opposite party No. 1 vide its communication dated 11.8.2006 alleged that the petitioner - company, which is a joint venture of M/s. Karamjeet Singh & Co. Ltd. and M/s. Utkal Highways made incorrect statement regarding sale and delivery of surface miner being serial nos. 8210001 and 03216002990260. The petitioner, was therefore, asked to submit an explanation alongwith supporting documents on the points raised in the show cause within ten days from the date of receipt of the show cause. The petitioner gave its reply to show cause on 25.8.2006 stating therein that it was the lawful owner of the said surface miner at the time of dropping the tender and the said surface miner was purchased from M/s. Utkal Mines & Infra¬structure (Private) Ltd. against the sale deed on deferred payment basis by issue of post dated cheques as per mutual understanding between the seller and the purchaser. The petition¬er also submitted various documents including insurance policies showing the petitioner’s ownership of the surface miner, and payment of consideration amount for the same and also the partic¬ulars were given to the Chief Vigilance Officer. Even though the aforesaid explanation was furnished by the petitioner, the petitioner was never restrained from working and the petitioner was allowed to work in terms of the contract. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a set of questionnaire on 15th March, 2007. According to the petitioners, the said questionnaire is nothing but repetition of the queries raised in the show cause by the Chief Vigilance Officer. On 15.5.2007 the petitioner gave its reply to the questionnaire on the same lines of its reply to the show cause issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer. The petitioner was never informed anything about the outcome of the show-cause proceeding. Suddenly again on 19.6.2007 the opposite party No. 2 issued a notice alleging that the sale deed in support of ownership of the surface miner submitted by the petitioner was not genuine as the same was not valid and the petitioner was given time to submit its written statement of defence within 21 days. Consequently the petitioner gave its written statement of defence on 9.7.2007. Thereafter came the order of termination dated 18.7.2007 which was received by the petitioner on 20.7.2007.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties while accepting the aforesaid facts stated that the petitioner had submitted two sale deeds to satisfy the eligibility criteria about the ownership of surface miners in the tender condition. It was submitted that the petitioner, as a bidder under the tender condition, was to submit an affidavit in the prescribed pro forma on a non-judicial stamp paper duly sworn in before the Magistrate/Notary Public to the effect that the documents sub