ORDER I. A. No. 2465 of 2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 533 dated 26.03.2007 (Annexure-6) by which a contract executed with the petitioner for construction of two check dams on Baghi Nala in the Bhawnathpur block of the district, Garhwa has been cancelled without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The facts, which are undisputed and borne out from the counter affidavit of the respondent themselves are that under the signature of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Notice Inviting Tender (in short N.I.T.) bearing Advertisement no. 1/2006-2007 was issued for construction of a series of check dams on Baghi Nala in the Bhawnathpur block of the District, Garhwa. Four contractors including the petitioner purchased bill of quantity, but only the petitioner participated in the said tender. The petitioner has quoted 15% below the scheduled rate, which is the lowest acceptable rate. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Medninagar, respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 98 dated 23.02.2007 alloted the aforesaid work of series of check dams at Baghi Nala to the petitioner and directed him to execute the agreement for the said work within one week. The petitioner was asked by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Garhwa to deposit the balance 3% of security deposit and execute the agreement within the stipulated period vide TO No. 383 dated 24.02.2007. The petitioner, accordingly, executed the agreement on 26.02.2007 after depositing the required 3% as security deposit bearing agreement no. 1F2 of 2006-07, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The time period stipulated under the agreement for completion of work order was six months only and the agreement value was Rs. 30,94,769/-and terms and conditions of the work had been described in the said agreement. However, by Annexure-6 dated 26.03.2007 issued by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Garhwa, the work order has been cancelled on the basis of instruction of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi. Annexure-7 is another office order issued by the Technical Adviser, Minor Irrigation Circle, Medninagar to the effect that on telephonic communication of the Chief Engineer, the work order of check dams is being cancelled. Annexure-7 is another office order issued by the Technical Adviser, Minor Irrigation Circle, Medninagar to the effect that on telephonic communication of the Chief Engineer, the work order of check dams is being cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order stating that the same is a non-speaking order without giving any opportunity of hearing or show cause notice to the petitioner and has been done after execution of agreement as well as execution of part of the work to the extent of about 25%. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work was to be executed within a period of six months only and the petitioner is not at fault, but the respondents have tried to justify the same stating that since only petitioner had participated in the tender out of four contractors, it has become the case of single tender, which cannot be approved as per the government Rules. 4. From the submissions of the parties, it appears that in the entire process, the petitioner is not at fault, as it would appear from the averment made in the pleadings of the parties and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer concerned. It also appears from the notings of Executive Engineer annexed to the supplementary affidavit that the work in question was to be executed in a difficult geographical area and the petitioner had quoted 15% below scheduled rate i.e. the minimum rate at the time of tender. It is indicated that at the end of financial year, it would not be feasible to go for re tender as the execution of the work would suffer if the same was not allowed to be executed by the petitioner. However, the work order has been cancelled. The petitioner has also annexed the extract of the measurement books in I.A. No. 2456 of 2009 showing the execution of part of the work. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Modi Projects Ltd. Ranchi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others with other analogous cases reported in 2012 (4) JCR 136 (Jhr) wherein such order of cancellation of agreement was quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Modi Projects Ltd. Ranchi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others with other analogous cases reported in 2012 (4) JCR 136 (Jhr) wherein such order of cancellation of agreement was quashed. In the present case, from the facts narrated hereinabove, it appears that not only the petitioner has been made to suffer but the interest of public affected have also been suffered because of the short-sighted action of the respondents in cancellation of work order for no fault of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner had quoted 15% below the scheduled rate, which is minimum acceptable rate as per the tender. Since the matter has remained pending for five long years, the work itself has suffered ultimately affecting the people at large. Order of cancellation appears to be cryptic order suffering from non-application of mind and on the dictate of the superiors and that too without notice to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the impugned order contained at Anenxure-6 dated 26.03.2007 is quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to execute the work and the respondents may consider his request for grant of escalation on the item rates because of delay in its execution of five years from the date of entering into the agreement. 6. In that view of the matter, it will open to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities of the department for consideration of his requests for grant of escalation, which may be considered by them in accordance with law and the norms prevalent taking into account the time elapsed since the agreement itself was entered and was to be executed within a period of six months. It is, therefore, made clear that the work be completed as expeditiously as possible so that the benefits of the same may accrue to the people affected in the said region before the rainy season. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 8. I. A. No. 2465 of 2009 stands disposed of. Petition allowed.