ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

With the consent of parties, heard finally.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3.2.2022 (AnnexureP/19), whereby registration No.EB00415 with M.P. Public Works Department has been suspended for a period of two years.

2. The petitioner is a registered Contractor having registration No.EB00415 issued by the MPPWD. The petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of Archery Ground at Girls Krida Parisar, Jhabua. An agreement between the parties bearing No.06/2019 - 20 was executed on 26.6.2019. Rates quoted by the petitioner were found 20.20% below the schedule rate and the total cost of construction came out to be Rs.16,30,400/- for entire awarded work. The petitioner was given 12 months' time to complete the work excluding rainy season i.e. up to 25.6.2020. According to the petitioner, working drawings were approved by the respondents only on 30.12.2019 and the lay out was provided to him on 23.9.2020 which is the main reason for the delay in execution of the work. The petitioner was directed to re-execute the work of column after dismentling the same that is also the reason of delay.

3. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 16.9.2021 in order to terminate the contract under Clause - 27 of the agreement. The petitioner submitted a reply on 22.9.2021. The respondents were not satisfied with the reply and directed the petitioner to execute the work at site. The petitioner again submitted a reply explaining the difficulties in completing the work, however, vide letter dated 12.10.2021, the respondents terminated the contract in question. The petitioner invoked Clause - 12 of the agreement by submitting a claim before the Additional Project Director. An appeal was also preferred by the petitioner which is still pending for consideration.

4. After termination of the contract, now vide impugned order dated 3.2.2022, the Additional Project Director has suspended the registration of the petitioner for a period of two years only because of non-completion of the work in question within a period of 12 months. Hence, the present writ petition is before this Court. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order inter alia on the ground that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, hence, the order is bad in law.

5. The respondents have filed a reply by submitting that reasons for termination of contract and suspension of registration are the same. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice and reply was obtained. Since the reply was not found satisfactory, therefore, the contract was terminated as well as registration has been suspended for two years. Hence, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It is further submitted that order No.F-17-1.2010/B/19/357 of the M.P. Public Work Department dated 24.3.2015 specifically lays down the conditions for blacklisting or suspension of registration. The case of the petitioner falls under point No.6 which stipulates that the contractor is found to be nonserious in executing the agreement work or leaves the agreement work incomplete, irrespective of the expiry of the full contract period. Admittedly, the petitioner did not complete the work within the stipulated period. Whatever may be the reasons for non-completion of the work within 12 months shall be decided in the matter to be referred to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal. All these disputed question cannot be decided in a writ petition, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that neither in the NIT nor in the agreement, there is any provision for suspension of the registration with PWD. There is only provision for termination of the contract which has already been invoked by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner cannot be double jeopardized for the same d