Order Seeking quashing of Press Release dated 14.06.2013 whereby, Agreement No. 03 SBD/2012-13 was cancelled, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Pursuant to Procurement Notice dated 12.04.2012 the work for widening and straightening of Jharia Baliapur road under Plan Head for the year, 2011-2012 was awarded to the petitioner namely, M/s Abhay Tele Engineering Private Ltd. Consequently, Agreement No. 03/SBD 2012-13 was executed on 12.07.2012. The work was to be completed within 6 months that is, on or before 11.01.2013. However, due to Naxal and terrorist problem, delay in providing the work site, delay in payment of mobilization advance etc., the work could not progress in terms of agreement. The respondent-authorities themselves recognized the difficulties of the contractor and approved the revised work programme however, suddenly by Press Release dated 14.06.2013, the agreement was terminated. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing show-cause notice and without affording opportunity of hearing, Agreement No. 03 SBD/2012-13 has been terminated by the respondent-authorities, illegally. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has completed 27% work however, payment for the same has not been made to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted representation on 20.06.2013 however, the respondents have not decided the claim of the petitioner. Resisting the prayer made in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that on 19.02.2013 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to show cause within 3 days why the Agreement be not terminated. It is submitted that the petitioner since failed to complete the work even six months beyond the scheduled completion time, agreement was terminated after issuing several notices to the petitioner-company. 4. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand, I find that several notices contained in letters dated 29.10.2012, 23.11.2012, 04.02.2013, 08.02.2013, 19.02.2013, 04.03.2013 and 08.04.2013 were issued to the petitioner. Besides these notices, Press Release was published in the newspaper on 09.03.2013, 13.04.2013 and 19.06.2013. The petitioner though submitted revised work programme with affidavit dated 20.02.2013, it failed to complete the work within revised work programme also. Consequently, a decision was taken on 10.06.2013 to terminate the agreement and a communication was sent to the Department of Information and Public Relation for publishing the Press Release which was published on 14.06.2013. The petitioner though submitted revised work programme with affidavit dated 20.02.2013, it failed to complete the work within revised work programme also. Consequently, a decision was taken on 10.06.2013 to terminate the agreement and a communication was sent to the Department of Information and Public Relation for publishing the Press Release which was published on 14.06.2013. In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the termination on the sole ground that no notice was issued before the agreement was cancelled. As noticed above, several notices were issued to the petitioner besides, specific notice dated 19.02.2013 for terminating the agreement. In these facts, I find no reason to interfere with the order terminating the Agreement No.03 SBD/2012-13. However, I find that in the counter-affidavit the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has completed about 27 % work. In response to the averment that the respondents have not made payment for the work done by the petitioner, in the counter-affidavit it is stated that “the work done upto 19.03.2013 has already been paid in March, 2013 itself. Thereafter, no work has been executed by the petitioner from 19.03.2013 to 30.04.2013”. The petitioner has alleged that in the 2nd payment about 65 % amount was deducted. The respondents have not disclosed the amount of payment made to the petitioner. It is not also indicated in the counter-affidavit that the respondents have taken decision on the representation of the petitioner. 5. Considering the above facts, more particularly the facts that the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has completed about 27 % work, a direction is issued to the respondent no. 2 to ensure full and final payment to the petitioner for the work completed by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that payment would be made in terms of the agreement executed between the parties and if admissible in law. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms. Petition disposed of.