JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. — The petitioner, a Graduate-Engineer-Contractor, was awarded with the work for “Construction of a San¬skrutik Kendra” (cultural building) at Sambalpur which was being funded by Opp.party-Mahanadi Coalfields Limited under the Periph¬eral Development Scheme. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that tenders were invited during the financial year 2002-03 and the petitioner having been found to be lowest tenderer, was issued with the necessary work order and was directed to commence the work from 2.2.2004 and the period of completion was stipulated to be within one year therefrom i.e. 1.2.2005 with an estimated cost of Rs.45,20,705.56. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner that on being awarded with the work in question, he imme¬diately started the work by constructing the building upto plinth level and filling the same with sands. Thereafter, a revised drawing was handed to him by the letter dated 19.3.2004 and it is alleged that various other deviations were directed to be carried out in the said work and for which the said was not completed within the time stipulated with the estimated cost. It is submit¬ted that the petitioner applied for extension of time as suggest¬ed by the Opp.party by his letter dated 14.3.2005 and in turn thereof, the petitioner made necessary request for extension of time and for escalation cost. But immediately thereafter i.e. on 15.3.2005, the petitioner was verbally instructed that there was a proposal for changing the roofing of the main hall from CGI sheets to RCC and therefore, was asked to await the decision on the same before proceeding further with the work. Thereafter, it appears that a meeting was held on 7.4.2005 under Chairmanship of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Northern Divn.), Sambalpur, in presence of the Chief Engineer, Dy. Chief Engineer, Superin¬tending Engineer (Civil), MCL and the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. where the members of the said Committee while expressing their satisfaction on the progress of the work within the time, graded the work as “exemplary work of MCL”. The said Committee unanimously decided to change the provision of truss roof to RCC roof subject to checking of design and stability of existing sub-structure. The said Committee unanimously decided to change the provision of truss roof to RCC roof subject to checking of design and stability of existing sub-structure. The learned counsel further asserts that no work could therefore, be carried out awaiting a decision on the suggestion made by the Committee headed by the R.D.C. for change of roof of the main Hall and since no decision was taken thereon for a substantial period of time, the progress of work remained sus¬pended. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a noting made in the concerned file, which is annexed at page-17 to the writ petition, by the Superintending Engineer (Civil), which indicates that “Due to pending decision of roof¬ing, the finishing work of Main Hall would not be taken up at this stage”. In this respect, it is submitted that although the work was stopped on account of the suggestion for change of roof¬ing, the final decision was taken by the MCL only on 3.1.2006 directing that the roofing of the Hall is to be done with CGI sheets as per the provision in the original agreement and there¬fore, the suggestion of the Committee headed by the RDC was turned down by the MCL only on 3.1.2006 under Annexure-5. Thereafter, once again the petitioner was requested to apply for extension of time giving construction schedule programme to complete the work within 31.3.2006. The petitioner asserts that he had applied for extension of time vide Annexure-2 stating therein that the petitioner was not responsible for the delay and the delay was caused for the reasons noted herein above and therefore, could not be ascribed to the petitioner. It appears from other various communications between the parties that while the MCL had granted extension of time till 31.3.2006, thereafter under the purported ground that the petitioner has failed to complete the work within the extended period of time, a letter dated 15.6.2006 under Annexure-11 terminating the contract was issued which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. 5. The Opp. Party-MCL has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, seeking to justify their action of terminating the contract on the ground that the petitioner has failed to complete the work within the extended period of time as granted and therefore, the writ petition merits no consideration. Mr. 5. The Opp. Party-MCL has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, seeking to justify their action of terminating the contract on the ground that the petitioner has failed to complete the work within the extended period of time as granted and therefore, the writ petition merits no consideration. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the Opp.Party has placed reliance on various communications issued by the Opp. Party to the petitioner directing him to expedite the work in progress and submits that since the petitioner failed to do so, the termina¬tion order was fully justified. Apart from that the MCL has filed a further affidavit indicating that due to default on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the obligation, he is liable for payment of penalty in terms of the agreement. 6. It was further averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ application challenging the order of termination of contract, the Opp. Party-MCL has sought to issue a fresh tender for completion of the balance work of Sanskrutik Kendra with an estimated cost of Rs.14,17,834.93 vide Tender Notice dated 17.8.2007. The said Tender Notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing Misc. Case No.9890 of 2007 and this Court by its order dated 13.9.2007 directed the MCL not to open the sealed bids received. 7. On consideration of the averments made by the learned counsel for rival parties, it is the admitted case between the parties that a contract work was awarded in favour of the peti¬tioner originally for an estimated cost of Rs.45,20,705.56. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioner has carried out sub¬stantial work and while the work was in progress, there was a suggestion by the Committee headed by the RDC to change the type of roofing of the Main Hall and there was also a noting in the file at page-17 of the writ petition to the effect that the fin¬ishing work of the Main Hall would not be taken up due to pending decision on roofing. It is further clear from the documents annexed to an affidavit filed in Court at the time of hearing by the petitioner on 16.01.2008 that no decision was taken on the suggestion of RDC Committee dated 7.4.2005 till 6.12.2005 and it was only at the meeting held on 6.12.2005 with the representa¬tives of the MCL, it was finally resolved that R.C.C. roofing of the structure is not feasible since the foundation of the struc¬ture was completed in accordance with the original plan and design prepared before taking up of the construction work and accordingly, it was unanimously resolved that the construction work shall be completed in accordance with the plan and design of CGI roofing and therefore, the suggestion of the RDC was turned down. From the above, it is seen that for the period from 7.4.2005 to 6.12.2005 there was no progress in the work since the sugges¬tion of the RDC Committee remained pending for consideration and it was only on 6.12.2007 a final decision was taken that the original design shall be implemented and therefore, clearly this period of delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submit¬ted that his client is still ready and willing to undertake and complete the work in question provided the claim of penalty against the petitioner by the MCL is waived and the balance work of construction shall be completed by the petitioner if he is permitted to complete the work at the lowest rate quoted by any of the bidders pursuant to the tender Notice dated 17.8.2007 issued by the MCL. 9. On a consideration of the facts as noted herein above and the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that since in the present case the original tender was floated in the year 2002-03 and the work was awarded to the petitioner in the year 2004 on the basis of such bids made by him in 2002, directing the petitioner to complete the work at the old tendered rate would not be feasible since a substantial period of delay is ascribable to the authorities for their failure to take a decision in the matter of roofing. We are further of the view that permitting a new agency to complete the work would further delay implementation of the work and could possibly lead to further protected litigation. Construction of a Cultural Centre is of immense public importance. Therefore, the writ application is allowed, the order dated 15.6.2006 (Annexure-11) is quashed and consequently the tender notice dated 17.8.2007 (Annexure-25) is also declared illegal. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with further direc¬tions to the Opp. Party-MCL to withdraw the notice for levy of penalty against the petitioner, as well as permit the petitioner to complete the balance construction work of Sanskrutik Kendra at the lowest rate that will become available to M.C.L., on opening of the bids already received by it in response to the tender Notice dated 17.8.2007 and we direct accordingly. The petitioner is further directed to complete the balance construction work of the Sanskrutik Kendra within the period stipulated in the tender Notice dated 17.8.2007, at the lowest rate that may have been bided for in response to the said tender notice, which has been quashed. A. K. GANGULY, C.J. I agree. Petition disposed of.