ORDER Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J. 1. The Petitioner has challenged order Annexure P-1 dated 11.6.2010, by which the Respondents have terminated a part of contract of belt jointing relating to Birsinghpur 500 MW, which was assigned to the Petitioner for a period of 2 years and has awarded that part of work of belt jointing to Respondent No. 4. 2. In this petition, Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: (1) That by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari the impugned order Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 may please be quashed as submitted above. (2) That by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus the Respondents be commanded by this Hon'ble Court to comply with the contract Annexure P-7 in letter and spirit. (3) That any other writ, direction or order as may be deemed fit may also be issued together with awarding of costs of these proceedings. 3. The facts necessary for the decision of this petition are that the Petitioner in response to a notice inviting tender dated 19.6.2009 for the work of jointing the Nylon Conveyor belts by cold Vulcanizing Process/Replacement of Belt/Rubber Lagging on Conveyor Pulleys/Longitudinal Jointing of Belt, Spot Patch repairing and other conveyor works at STPS Sarni, SGTPS Birsinghpur and ATPS Chachai of MPPGCL of Respondents, submitted its offer by participating in the tender process. Out of 3 tenderers Petitioner was found the lowest. The offer of Petitioner was accepted and letter of intent was issued to the Petitioner on 6.2.2010 Annexure P-5. For the aforesaid 3 power plants the work was for Rs. 4,52,61,519/- excluding service tax. On 30.3.2010 the work order was issued to the Petitioner for 2 years for the aforesaid work of all the 3 units as per Annexure P-6. An agreement pursuant to the tender process was entered between the parties on 27.4.2010 Annexure P-7. That on 11.6.2010 the Petitioner received a letter Annexure P-1 by which the work order relating to Birsinghpur 500 MW for aforesaid tender items was cancelled and was entrusted to Respondent No. 4 by order Annexure P-2. These orders are under challenge in this petition. 4. The Petitioner assailed the aforesaid orders on the ground: that (a) Before cancellation of a part of contract no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner. The order is a non-speaking order. These orders are under challenge in this petition. 4. The Petitioner assailed the aforesaid orders on the ground: that (a) Before cancellation of a part of contract no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner. The order is a non-speaking order. There were no complaint against the Petitioner with regard to its work or for efficient working at the plant. (b) That as per the agreement Annexure P-6, the period of contract was for 2 years w.e.f. 19.5.2010 and could be extended by 6 months at the discretion of Respondents. (c) That a penalty which could be imposed for the breach of contract as are referred in para 8 & 9 of the contract, which reads as under: (viii) PENALTY: i) In case the contractor is found negligent and work progress remains unsatisfactory, it shall be lawful for MPPGCL to entrust the work to some other agency on the risk and cost of contractor. ii) In case contractor fails to complete the work within the scheduled period, penalty @ 0.5% (half) per week, subject to maximum 10% will be imposed, as per the discretion of the Engineer-in-charge of the concerned job. (ix) PENALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT/FAILURE TO EXECUTE THE ORDER: The contractor shall abide by the terms and conditions of the contract and shall work as per the instructions issued by the engineer-in-charge. In case the contractor fails to carry out the work as directed or is not able to cope up with the work satisfactorily and it is found that the smooth working of the plant is affected due to his unsatisfactory working and he fails to improve his working, the MPPGCL reserve the right to terminate the contract and time during the currency of contract by serving him notice of seven day. The security deposit in such case shall be forfeited. MPPGCL shall be entitled to forfeit the security deposit or the balance there off, that may at that time be recoverable and to realize any further sums as damages from any sums due on the contract with MPPGCL from any breach of the terms and conditions of the contract. The security deposit in such case shall be forfeited. MPPGCL shall be entitled to forfeit the security deposit or the balance there off, that may at that time be recoverable and to realize any further sums as damages from any sums due on the contract with MPPGCL from any breach of the terms and conditions of the contract. On termination of the contract, the additional expenses, which the MPPGCL will have to bear for getting the work executed by engaging labour or getting the work executed though alternative agencies or departmentally, for the balance period of the contract, for which contract was to be operative, will be recoverable from the contract, whose contract will be terminated in the subsequent clauses. This difference will be worked out on the basis of actual quantum of work done during the balance period of contract, for which the contract is terminated and the new rates as per the alternative agency or actual payment involved plus 24% supervision charges will be recovered from the any due or deposit of contractor. (d) It is stated that Petitioner was not negligent or the Petitioner's work progress was not unsatisfactory. The Petitioner never failed to complete the work within the scheduled period or the Petitioner was ever informed to improve its work in absence of which the contract could not have been terminated partially. Placing reliance to the judgments of Apex Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. v. State of U.P., and Ors. AIR 1999 SCC 537 , Haji Abdul Shakoor and Co. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 2423 , ABL International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 and Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 171 it was submitted that this petition be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed. 5. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondents submitted that being a contract matter this Court would not interfere in such matter. The scope of interference under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. The Petitioner can very well claim damages because of the termination of contract. 5. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondents submitted that being a contract matter this Court would not interfere in such matter. The scope of interference under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. The Petitioner can very well claim damages because of the termination of contract. Apart from this he has referred Clause (1) of the agreement in support of his arguments, that Respondents were having a right to amend the order at any stage during the currency of contract within the frame work of all the contracts. Stating aforesaid, it was submitted by Shri Jaiswal that there is no scope of interference in such matters. The Petitioner if feels aggrieved may claim damages against the Petitioner by taking recourse of law and in this case writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. 6. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to refer Clause (1) of the work order on which much emphasis has been given by Shri Jaiswal, which reads as under: (1) BASIS OF THE ORDER: Basis of this order shall be as per our tender specification No. 08-004/P&W/WT-03/413 dated 21-05-2009, contractor's offer and any subsequent written correspondence from either side even if it is not listed under reference. In the event of any doubt at any stage, this correspondence shall be referred for any interferences drawn from the structures of words and sentences in this order shall always mean to have a 'basis' of past records for this contract and the contractor shall not have any right to draw/produce any other inference independent of the past records associated with this contract. MPPGCL shall always have a right to amend the order at any stage during the currency of contract within the frame work of all standing documents. The rates of the price schedule are firm and will be applicable for all days and timings including Sundays, National Holidays and also from 6 PM to 6 AM. In any case, no extra payment will be made for the work carried out either between 6 PM to 6 AM or any Sundays, Holidays or National Holidays. Though it is true that in contractual matter the scope of interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and normally this Court would not interfere in such matters. Though it is true that in contractual matter the scope of interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and normally this Court would not interfere in such matters. In this regard the law laid down by the Apex Court, as relied upon by the learned Counsel for Respondents settles the position of law. But the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by a judgment of Apex Court in Haji Abdul Shakoor and Company v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 760 wherein the Apex Court in para 7 held thus: 7. It is not in dispute that the Appellant is a Class 'A' Contractor with the second Respondent who transferred the contract-carrying capacity of the Appellant limited to Rs. 6.50 crores to the headquarters, Western Command, Respondent 3. This was accepted by the third Respondent as evidenced by letter dated 14-12-2000. This fact was reaffirmed by the letter of the second Respondent issued on 21-12-2000. The net result of the exercise is that the Appellant became eligible to compete as a Class 'A' Contractor up to the limit of Rs 6.50 crores. This is a civil right of the Appellant which cannot be taken away or even curtailed except in accordance with law. Admittedly, before passing the impugned order no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the Appellant by the third Respondent, as such the impugned order suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice and such an order cannot but be an arbitrary order. The Apex Court further held thus: 8. From a perusal of this letter, it is apparent that before reducing the capacity, no notice was issued to the Appellant and he was not given an opportunity to represent his case in regard to reduction of contract-carrying capacity which indeed converts the status of the Appellant as Class 'B' Contractor. Whether the policy which is called in aid to support the impugned order, is valid in law and if so, it applies to the Appellant, are factors which need to be determined after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. Further, it is also evident that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. Unfortunately, the High Court missed these germane aspects, therefore, the order of the High Court, under challenge, cannot be sustained. Further, it is also evident that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. Unfortunately, the High Court missed these germane aspects, therefore, the order of the High Court, under challenge, cannot be sustained. The Apex Court while reversing the order of High Court held thus: 9. For all these reasons, the order of the High Court under challenge is set aside, the impugned order passed by the third Respondent is quashed. The Appellant shall, therefore, be treated by the Respondents as having the contract-carrying capacity of Rs. 6.50 crores. However, we leave it open to the Director General, Supply and Transport, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, if he is of the opinion that the contract-carrying capacity of the Appellant as accepted by the third Respondent in his Letter No. 58817/HAS/8/ST-5 dated 14-12-2000 needs to be reviewed, to consider that question and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the Appellant and giving an opportunity of being heard. It is needless to mention that the order shall be a speaking one. 7. In this case it is not in dispute that after following a due process of tender, work was awarded to the Petitioner and after entering into an agreement work order was issued to the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 4 to whom present work has been assigned had not participated in the same process , but all of a sudden it has been assigned the work, by the impugned order. In the return it is also stated by the Respondents that Respondent No. 4 was assigned the work for 7 other contracts and there was some difficulty and inconvenience to manage number of contracts for smooth operation of the units. Every contractor has to be dealt with by separate contracts of different nature of work and due to failure of any of them, whole work of O & M was to suffer and generation of electricity would suffer. On this basis Respondents awarded contract in respect of O & M to one person. The belt jointing is one of the part of that whole work which was earlier awarded to the Petitioner was withdrawn and contract of whole O & M of 500 MW was given to Respondent No. 4. On this basis Respondents awarded contract in respect of O & M to one person. The belt jointing is one of the part of that whole work which was earlier awarded to the Petitioner was withdrawn and contract of whole O & M of 500 MW was given to Respondent No. 4. Though there may be some justification in the act of Respondent in awarding entire contract to one contractor, but why no due process was followed by the Respondents in this regard. They ought to have invited tender for awarding whole O & M work and only in that circumstances they could have awarded the whole work of O & M to one contractor. The Respondent No. 4 had not participated in the process for contract in question and the Respondents knowing it well that the Petitioner was successful tenderer in the open tender process and awarded the work to the Petitioner and issued work order on 30.3.2010. Thus, there are no circumstances in which without following principles of natural justice and extending an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner part of work could have been assigned to the Respondent No. 4. The Respondents M.P. Power Engineering Co. Ltd., is a wholly owned Company of the State of Madhya Pradesh and is engaged in generation of electricity in the State of Madhya Pradesh and falls within the definition of the State. The act of Respondent State can be examined on the principles as enshrined under Article of the Constitution of India. The Respondents if were facing some difficulty in O & M work with the Petitioner or wanted to assign the entire work to Respondent No. 4, then they ought to have followed the principles of natural justice. No allegations have been made against the Petitioner in respect of its performance or any shortcomings or complaint of unsatisfactory work during the course of the contract. It was also stated during the course of the hearing that it the earlier years also Petitioner was performing the same work for the Respondents satisfactorily. 8. In view of aforesaid, the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 are not sustainable under the law and are hereby quashed. It was also stated during the course of the hearing that it the earlier years also Petitioner was performing the same work for the Respondents satisfactorily. 8. In view of aforesaid, the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 are not sustainable under the law and are hereby quashed. However we leave it open to the Respondents if the Respondents are still of the opinion that the entire O & M deserves to be assigned to one contractor then to consider that question and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law after issuing notice to the Petitioner and giving Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Needless to say that the order shall be a speaking order. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be entitled for costs of this petition from the respondents. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).