(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has moved the Court for quashing the decision/order communicated under letter dated 04.11.2015 issued by the respondent no. 3 as well as consequential letters dated 10.11.2015 and 19.11.2015 issued by the respondents. No. 6 and 7 by which security deposit, earlier refunded to the petitioner for another tender, was sought to be recovered from the work which was being executed by the petitioner subsequently under the respondents no. 6 and 7.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was the successful bidder for a tender of strengthening and widening the roads in the district of Jamui for which Letter of Acceptance was issued by the authorities on 27.09.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to furnish the performance security amount. However, on 10.10.2012, the petitioner wrote to the authority that as per tender, stone chips were to be picked from the mines in the district of Sheikhpura but since none of the mines were working, permission may be given to him to get the chips from another place as there was difficulty in executing the agreement as per the original specifications.