Hon’ble Virendra Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Srideep Chatterjee, learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner company has instituted this writ petition assailing the order dated 20.2.2018 passed by respondent No. 3, cancelling the agreement dated 1.1.2018 entered between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 for violation of conditions of the said agreement. It is further pleaded that performance security has been forfeited in the most illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable manner, as it is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No. 2 issued a notice inviting tenders (e-bid) for supply of man power on outsourcing basis. The petitioner company applied for the same and completed the necessary formalities required for the participation in the aforesaid tender. The respondent No. 3 wrote a letter dated 28.12.2017 informing the petitioner that rates quoted by him have been found to be lowest as such the petitioner was forwarded a copy of the draft agreement and was further directed to get agreement entered into by 1.1.2018. The respondent No. 3 entered into an agreement dated 1.1.2018 with the petitioner regarding supply of man power for a period of one year. The petitioner, in pursuance of the said agreement, was required to supply man power to the respondent No. 2 against the posts of Computer Operator, Stenographer, Clerk and Peon, etc.

4. It is further mentioned that Clause-8 of the aforesaid agreement provides that if the first party, i.e., the petitioner, is found to be guilty of unauthorized deduction/recovery of any amount from the honorarium payable to any employee except E.P.F. and E.S.I. deductions, wherever applicable, the second party, i.e., the respondent No. 3 shall be free to terminate the agreement with immediate effect and the Bank Guarantee/F.D.R. of Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited towards performance security shall be forfeited. According to Clause-10 of the aforesaid agreement it was the responsibility of the petitioner to carry out all the financial, administrative and statutory obligations under the laws in force, which were attracted in the case in hand. On 4.1.2018, the petitioner deposited performance security in the form of F.D.R., amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- for issuing work order in favour of petitioner.

5. It is further mentioned by the petitioner that on 5.2.2018, the petitioner wrote a letter mentioning therein that till date no work order has been issued in favour of the petitioner. It was also stated in the said letter that if the old employees had to be absorbed/supplied, the said employees would have to get themselves registered. It was not cleared whether the old employees had to be accommodated in pursuance to the agreement dated 1.1.2018. The respondent No. 3 forwarded a list dated 7.2.2018 containing the attendance of old employees to the petitioner with a further direction to submit the bills for payment of honorarium of the said employees mentioned in the aforesaid list.

6. It is further pleaded that it was nowhere mentioned in the agreement dated 1.1.2018, nor in the e-bid document, that the service provider company after having been selected through the aforesaid tender process, would have to absorb the old employees. As such, thrusting the same upon the petitioner by forwarding the list of employees is clearly illegal, arbitrary and cannot be justified on the touchstone of reasonableness and fairness. The respondent No. 3 wrote a letter dated 15.2.2018 to the petitioner, calling upon it to submit its reply on account of alleged violation of Clause-8 of the agreement dated 1.1.2018 with respect to the allegation that the petitioner was extracting illegal money from the old employees in the name of registration fee. The petitioner company submitted its reply dated 1