J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order of termination of tender-contract and also, the order of placing his name in the Black List passed on 24-11-2003, subsequent to the termination order dated 28-07-2003, inter-alia contending that both the orders are illegal, unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice and unsustainable. ( 2 ) THE respondent-authority invited tenders for the construction work of Modipur - Jotana Road. The petitioners tender offer was accepted and accordingly, the petitioner had deposited the amount as required followed by Work Order dated 25-01-2003 with the specific stipulation to complete the said contract within a spell of 8 months from the date of commencement of work, which was considered as 30-01-2000. Thus, the date of the completion was 29-09-2000. ( 3 ) THE petitioner had commenced the work of construction on the limited site. It has been the case of the petitioner that the respondent-authority could not give the possession of the remaining sites, as a result of which, further progress could not be made. The petitioner addressed the respondent-authorities letters dated 21-07-2000, 01-10-2000, 22-02-2001, but unsuccessfully. ( 4 ) IT has, also, been the case of the petitioner that a big ditch nalia was to be filled up to make up the road and for that, huge quantity of earth was required to be taken from the nearby land. The respondents could not arrange for such land from which the earth could be taken out and they realized that such work was required to be added in the contract as `extra item as earth was to be brought from long distance. Respondent No. 1, as such, had made a proposal for extra item but no final decision could be taken. ( 5 ) ON account of failure on the part of the respondents, as alleged, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 14-05-2001, pointing out the loss being caused to the petitioner. It was, therefore, pointed that the contract has come to an end due to the failure of performance on the part of the respondents and therefore, no responsibility would remain with regard to the contract work. Final Bill Preparation was also requested. The petitioner did insist for order for extra work to be carried out, without which, work would not be carried out. Final Bill Preparation was also requested. The petitioner did insist for order for extra work to be carried out, without which, work would not be carried out. Again, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 23-01-2002 to consider all the failures and also to consider the petitioner as relieved from the responsibilities of the contractual obligation. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, arbitration proceedings were initiated and they were pending at the time when impugned orders came to be recorded. In short, it is the main contention of the petitioners that impugned orders are passed without following principles of natural justice and, therefore, they are bad. ( 7 ) WE have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. We have, also, dispassionately, examined the entire record together with relevant proposition of law. The contention of the respondents has been that dispute involves complex factual facts requiring investigation and, therefore, the writ jurisdiction is not appropriate remedy. It is, therefore, contended that a regular suit ought to have been filed for the settlement of disputes. ( 8 ) IT is borne out from the record that the respondents had served the petitioner with several notices for the purpose of expeditious progress in the work. Notices given by the respondents were even not replied by the petitioner. Even the petitioner was called to remain personally present at the time of measurement of the work carried out at site. He did not remain present. Therefore, the respondent had exercised the alternative to proceed against the petitioner ex parte. He was, also, called in person by the officer of the District Panchayat to explain his case and to have measurements taken at the site. ( 9 ) IT is, specifically, found that the petitioner was given requisite and sufficient opportunity of hearing. He, also, availed the same. Since the progress of the work was very slow and far behind scheduled time-frame as per the contract, the respondents went on issuing notices to the petitioner. ( 10 ) THE scheduled work came to be commenced at the work site for construction of Modipur-Jotana Road. Unfortunately, the petitioner-contractor completed 200 Metres of work out of total 2000 Metres of road construction and left the remaining work incomplete on 21-07-2000. As a result of inaction and indifference on the part of the petitioner-contractor, the work was hampered and delayed. Unfortunately, the petitioner-contractor completed 200 Metres of work out of total 2000 Metres of road construction and left the remaining work incomplete on 21-07-2000. As a result of inaction and indifference on the part of the petitioner-contractor, the work was hampered and delayed. It is found that the petitioner could not reach and cope up with the speedy work before the completion of contratual period for completion of the work. ( 11 ) FROM the analysis of the factual profile and upon consideration of the submissions raised before us, we find that the real crux of the dispute is that since the petitioner was not in a position to complete the work of the road offered to him in the tender within the stipulated frame of time and as the petitioner expected an increase in the rate as per the new Schedule of Rates (S. O. R.), all these disputes and problems came to be created just to escape from the liability to complete the work as per the stipulated time and as per the terms and conditions of the tender. ( 12 ) IT is in this context after issuing show-cause notice, the respondents passed the order of termination of contract dated 28-07-2003 and communicated to the petitioner. The termination order is very explicit, evident and unambiguous leading to the stage that there was a breach of contract on the part of the petitioner as the work could not be completed within the stipulated time-frame as per the tender-contract. We would not, therefore, deem it necessary to meticulously look into the terms and conditions and the text and tenor of the order of termination. ( 13 ) NOW follows the order of black-listing the petitioner. After offering the requisite and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after issuance of the show-cause notice, which entailed the response from the petitioner, and upon assessment and evaluation of the factual profile, the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings (Panchayat) Division, Mehsana, passed the impugned order, whereby the petitioners registration is to be kept in abeyance over and above the damages claimed by the respondents against the petitioner. ( 14 ) THE only question which now requires serious consideration for judicial adjudication is, as to whether both the impugned orders, namely, the order of terminating the contract and the order of black-listing the petitioner for a period of three years, are in any way affected, influenced or tainted by any extraneous consideration or impermissible ground. It may be noted, at this stage, that there is no any plea for mala fides raised against the respondents by the petitioner. It may be noted that the jurisdictional sweep of the constitutional power enshrined in Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very much circumscribed. Needless to reiterate that the Writ Court does not sit as an Appellate Court over the decision of the executive or others as the case may be. Again, the Writ Courts main anxiety ought to be to see that the decision-making process is not in any way coloured or affected by any impermissible or extraneous consideration. The Writ Court is concerned with the quality of the decision. If the party, who is visited with civil or evil consequences, knowingly well, fails in discharge of certain duties and when the work of a project or a programme is not completed within the stipulated time-frame as per the tender-contract and when such a condition is provided in the contract itself that it will be open for the authority to terminate the contract, the termination on such ground, is nothing but an outcome of indifference or indolence on the part of the contractor. The grounds on which the construction work came to be delayed are referable to inaction, indifference and inefficiency on the part of the petitioner. When time-frame is strictly prescribed and if such work is not carried out within that time-frame and again one of the terms and conditions of the tender-contract contract has been to terminate the contract, it is always open for the authority to terminate the contract after giving reasonable notice. ( 15 ) IN our opinion, the petitioner was given sufficient notice before both the impugned orders came to be passed. The contention was seriously propounded by the petitioner that the respondent-authority is liable as respondents have passed impugned orders in violation of principles of nature justice. ( 15 ) IN our opinion, the petitioner was given sufficient notice before both the impugned orders came to be passed. The contention was seriously propounded by the petitioner that the respondent-authority is liable as respondents have passed impugned orders in violation of principles of nature justice. In our opinion, from the factual profile narrated hereinabove and emerging from the record of the present case, the plea of non-observation of the principles of natural justice before passing of the impugned order raised by the petitioner is totally unreliable. We have, also, seen the record and we find that the notices and resultant orders are quite justified and we are completely satisfied with the order of termination dated 28-07-2003 of tender-contract and order dated 24-11-2003 black-listing the petitioner and for incidental payment of damages, passed by the respondent-authority could not be said to be in any way unjust, illegal or perverse requiring our interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since proceedings for assessment of the damages on the ground of breach of contract has been pending before the arbitrators, we have not gone into the meticulous and material, even exploratory, prima facie search. We, therefore, again place it on record that we have not gone into the merits and it will be open for the arbitrators to consider the dispute pending before it in accordance with the law. ( 16 ) IN the result, this petition deserves only and only one legal fate of rejection at the threshold. Accordingly, it shall stand rejected without any order as to costs. Notice discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. .