JUDGEMENT 1. Counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. Petitioner is a contractor, who was entrusted with the road laying contract in regard to five roads, which was rescinded tinder orders dated 23.5.2008, passed by the competent authority. The said order was challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 755 of 2009* and this Court having heard counsel for the parties, under orders dated 7.4.2009, Annexure-25A, kept the aforesaid order dated 23.5.2008 in abeyance and directed the authorities to reconsider and renegotiate the case of the petitioner in the light of the Govt. circular dated 10.10.2008. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 7.4.2009. Annexure-25A, the authorities have considered the request of the petitioner to again award the contract and have passed order, bearing Memo No. 1185 dated 23.9.2009. Annexure-37 whereunder out of the five roads, two roads, namely, Chausa- Karmnasa Road and Buxar-ltarhi Road have been again awarded to the petitioner on the same terms condition on which the two roads were earlier awarded. The road laying/strengthening contract in regard to Padri-Sonwarsa Road and Dhansoi-Dinara Road has been awarded to some other contractor at the risk and cost of the petitioner. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that grant of road strengthening contract to some other contractor in regard to Padri-Sonwarsa Road and Dhansoi-Dinara Road at the risk and cost of the petitioner is ignoramus of the fact that petitioner was not responsible for the delay caused in executing the contract as the delay was caused on account of many factors over which petitioner had hardly any control. Such submission has been made by the petitioner in his representation dated 26.6.2009, Annexure-35, vide submissions made in paragraph nos. 1 and 3. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while passing the impugned order dated 23.9.2009, Annexure-37, aforesaid submission that grant of fresh contract to some other contractor in regard to Padri-Sonwarsa Road and Dhansoi-Dinara Road at the risk and cost of the petitioner could not have been made as such delay was not caused at his instance, has not been considered in the impugned order dated 23.9.2009, Annexure-37. 5. Counsel for the State-respondents, however, disputes aforesaid submission. He states that in the earlier order dated 23.5.2008, Annexure-2! 5. Counsel for the State-respondents, however, disputes aforesaid submission. He states that in the earlier order dated 23.5.2008, Annexure-2! was the subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 755 of 2009, the authorities had concluded that petitioner was responsible for the delay in execution of the road laying/strengthening contract in regard to five roads and appreciating such conclusion order was passed rescinding the contract and the same reasons should be read in the present order dated 23.9.2009. 6. I regret not to accept such submission. Order dated 23.5.2008, Annexure-21. was the subject matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No 755 of 2009 was kept in abeyance by this Court under order dated 7.4.2009 and in the circumstances, the reasons incorporated therein also remained in abeyance and State-respondents having considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner in the light of the circular dated. 10.10.2008 decided to again grant fresh contract in regard to two roads, namely, Chausa-Karmnasa and Buxar-ltarhi roads. In the circumstances, it may be taken that the authorities were satisfied about the cause shown by the petitioner that petitioner was not responsible for the delay caused in executing the road laying/strengthening contract in regard to the two roads and in appreciation of such fact, execution of the works contract in regard to the two roads, namely, Chausa-Karmnasa and Buxar-ltarhi has been again granted to the petitioner as per the terms of the old earlier agreement. With reference to the aforesaid grant, it is submitted that as the road laying/strengthening contract in regard to Padri-Sonwarsa Road and Dhansoi-Dinara Roads was earlier granted to some other contractor, request of the petitioner for such grant was not considered. Non-grant of road laying/ strengthening contract with regard to the aforesaid two roads does not mean that the petitioner was responsible for delay in executing the earlier dontract in regard to the two roads and if the authorities are satisfied that petitioner was not responsible for the delay caused in executing the original road laying/strengthening contract of Padri-Sonwarsa Road and Dhansoi-Dinara Road, then they may at least modify the order rescinding the contract in regard to the two roads and delete from the order rescinding the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner. 7. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties, I direct the Superintending Engineer, Respondent No. 4 to reconsider the terms of the rescinding order dated 23.5.2008, Annexure-1 at the risk and cost of the petitioner in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the fresh representation alongwith a certified copy of this order. 8. Before parting with this order, this Court would like to observe that as the Dumaron-Bikramganj road has become State highway, as such, although covered by the rescinding order, but shall not be subject to the risk and cost of the petitioner. 9. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.