ORDER : 1. Seeking a direction upon the respondents to make the site available for widening and strengthening of Dalbhumgarh-Chakulia-Bend road, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the reasons beyond the control of the contractor, the work under contract could not be completed in time. It is stated that about 5 months after the work order was issued, the respondents wrote letter to the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation for removing the hand-pumps and thus, it is apparent on the face of the record that the default is on the part of the employer. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has filed an affidavit undertaking to complete the remaining work within 10 months commencing from February, 2016. 4. Seriously opposing the prayer in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the petitioner was specifically directed to complete the work on the exiting road however, he failed to commence the work. Responding to the application dated 29.06.2015 seeking extension of time, the competent authority took a decision on 14.10.2015 permitting the petitioner to complete the work by 29.02.2016 however, when it was noticed that the contractor would not be able to complete the work by that time, appropriate direction to complete the work was issued to the contractor. Referring to the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary-respondent no. 2, the learned counsel submits that appropriate decision on the revised work proposal submitted by the petitioner would be taken by the competent authority. 5. From the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties, it is apparent that in so far as, alleged default on the part of the department in removing the hand pumps, electricity poles etc. is concerned, the respondent-State has specifically denied the same. A stand has been taken by the respondent-Department that the petitioner was permitted to complete the work within a reasonable period however, he failed to do so. The department has asserted that contractor has completed only 40% of the work under the work order dated 13.03.2013. The plea that delay in completion of work was occasioned on account of default on the part of the employer is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present proceeding. The department has asserted that contractor has completed only 40% of the work under the work order dated 13.03.2013. The plea that delay in completion of work was occasioned on account of default on the part of the employer is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present proceeding. The work under the contract for which work order was issued on 13.03.2013 had completion period of 20 months. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to complete the work by the scheduled completion period. The contract provides extension of time on deduction of 10% of the value of the work as liquidated damages. The respondent-Department has already taken steps and 10% deduction has been made on the running bill of the petitioner-company. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of letter dated 28.01.2016 clearly discloses that a direction to the contractor to submit the revised work-schedule for completing the work on the existing road was issued only by the said letter. 6. In view of the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 and the response of the petitioner vide letter dated 29.01.2016, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Department to grant 10 months' time to the contractor commencing from 28.01.2016. In exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is hereby ordered that upon failure of the contractor to complete the work within 10 months commencing from 28.01.2016, a further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs besides, other action in terms of the contract shall be taken against the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of.