SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had agreement No. F2/ 14/2002 -2003 entered into between petitioner and the State of Bihar through Ex ecutive Engineer, National Highway Division, Road Constructibns Department, Bhagalpur. In the said agreement which was dated 21.9.2002, petitioner was to complete work by 20th March, 2003. In between he was allotted additional work on 22.2.2003.

(2.) STATE , on the other hand, has filed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner was required to complete the contract by 20.3.2003. He had not completed the same and, as such, by Annexure -9. dated 14.8.2006, the contract was rescinded. The learned counsel for the State submits that under the contract in terms of condition 3C, State had the jurisdiction to cancel the contract for non -performance and it did so. That could not be justiciable before this Court. Similar plea has been taken with regard to order of blacklisting. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. A reference to Annexure -9 would show that all the said order of cancelling the contract states is that the work had to be completed by 20.3.2003 and had not been done which was violation of the agreement and, as such, in view of condition 3 of the agreement, the agreement was being rescinded. This order is dated 14.8.2006. Significant to mention that in this order, no reason is given or disclosed as to why when the contract was to be completed in March 2003 and was not allegedly completed by then, action was being taken on 14.8.2006. In other words, order does not disclose or deal with the first cancellation which was ordered on 26.7.2003 and the revival of the agreement on 25.6.2005 extending the period upto 31.12.2005. This important matter has not been referred to at all. Similarly, no reference has been made to the petitioner 'sletters appended as Annexure -6 series which were prior to the extended date of completion of the contract. Further, Annexure -5 dated 13.3.2006 of the Department itself noticing the change in design and the necessity to prepare estimates has also not been referred to. In my view, these were essential facts to be not only referred to but discussed. If essential facts are left out or ignored then the order cannot be termed as an informed decision. An authority before it can cancel a contract, it must instruct itself of all relevant facts. It is only as a consequence of all relevant facts being noticed then a decision can be justified otherwise it would be an uninformed decision which per se would be arbitrary.

(3.) IN the present case, the contract was earlier rescinded but after two years, further time was granted to complete the same very contract. These were material facts which have been totally ignored. These facts are not even challenged by the State. They were the relevant facts and in fact it is those facts which explained why this gap between 20.3.2003 when the work was originally to be completed and 14.8.2006 when finally by Annexure -9, the contract was cancelled. It is not for this Court to speculate as to why this was done for this ought to have been apparent from the order itself. In such a situation, the order (Annexure -9) rescinding the contract cannot be sustained. It is either based on half information or relevant information has been ignored all of which were available to the authorities themselves. The order is an uninformed order and is per se arbitrary. It is, thus, set aside with all consequences.