Contract termination must strictly follow the procedures outlined in the agreement, ensuring compliance with notice and opportunity to remedy deficiencies.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. This is the second round of litigation before this Court assailing the action of the authorities in terminating the contract as the petitioner failed to improve the performance of their services for which the contract was awarded to them. Earlier, the contract was terminated after giving a notice, which was assailed by the petitioner on the ground that Clause 4.8 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) has not been strictly adhered to. The said Clause provides the modalities for termination of a contract, which includes thirty days’ clear notice in writing to be served upon the service provider, who was correspondingly given an opportunity to remedy such deficiencies in performance of an obligation within fifteen days from the date of receipt thereof.

2. The Court disposed of the said writ petition being W.P.(C) No.13384 of 2025 on 20^th August, 2025 upholding the contention of the petitioner that once the terms of the contract provides a mechanism of terminating the contract, the authorities cannot violate the same nor shall be permitted to whittle down its applicability. After quashing the notice of termination, being opposed to Clause 4.8 of the RFP, liberty was granted to the authorities to proceed afresh by following the procedure provided in the said clause.

3. Apropos the said order, the notice dated 9^th September, 2025 was issued to the petitioner by the Competent Authority, highlighting the poor performance of the sanitary workers, discrepancies in supply of the equipment/non-performance of the staff, non-submission of the EPF and ESI details, non-payment of the salaries and the EPF and above all, disobedience and negligence of the staff and failure to replace the sanitary workers.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner responded to the said notice by giving a reply on 23^rd September, 2025 dealing with all such allegations embodied in the said notice dated 9^th September, 2025. The summum bonum of the defense taken by the petitioner is that the allegation on the grounds, which have been enumerated in the said notice, does not stand on a factual matrix and the intention to terminate the contract is to facilitate the favoured person to obtain the said contract.

5. After expiration of thirty days, the order dated 14^th October, 2025 was communicated terminating the said contract to take effect immediately from 25^th November, 2025. Simultaneously, the contract was also awarded to the opposite party No.5, which would reckon on and from 26^th November, 2025 after the expiration of the period of contract awarded to the petitioner, which is a subject matter of challenge in this instant petition.

6. According to Mr. Susanta Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, once the earlier letter of termination is quashed and set aside by this Court, all the steps which have been taken prior thereto would perish automatically and the awarding of the contract on the basis of the same is per se illegal and unreasonable. It is further submitted that even the second course of action taken by the authorities is per se violative of Clause 4.8 of the RFP, as the notice does not contain a clear thirty days.

7. A plea of violation of the principles of natural justice is also projected in the instant writ petition, as no adequate opportunity to defend or of hearing was accorded to the petitioner. It is no longer res integra that once the concluded contract is entered into by and between the parties, the terms and conditions included in the said concluded