JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Advocate. 2. Heard Mrs. Chandra Prabha, S.C. IV appearing on behalf of the respondent-state. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) To quash/set aside the decision contained in letter no. 1031 dated 29.04.2014, whereby and whereunder the work that was allotted to the petitioner with respect to widening and strengthening of Kanke Bazar Tand (PWD) to Block chowk Boria road for the year 2011-12 and the agreement entered with the petitioner by the respondents has been terminated without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, inasmuch, as the notice contained in letter no. 969 dated 24.04.2014 as referred to in paragraph-14 thereof, was never served upon the petitioner. (ii) During the pendency of this writ petition, operation of the impugned order contained in letter no. 1031 dated 29.04.2014 may kindly be stayed. ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the tender floated by the State for the work related to widening and strengthening of Kanke Bazar Tand (PWD) to Block Chowk Boria road for the year 2011-12 and the tender of the petitioner was accepted vide letter dated 23.08.2012. Thereafter an agreement dated 20.09.2012 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent vide agreement no. 06-SBD-2012-13. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the agreement, work was to be completed by June 2013. He refers to Clause 21.1 of the agreement dated 20.09.2012 which is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “21.1- The Employer shall give position of all parts of the cite to the Contractor”. 5. By referring to the aforesaid clause 21.1, counsel for the petitioner submits that there were several obstacles in execution of the work which was to be removed by the respondents, but the same were not removed. Further, on 24.01.2013, the machinery of the petitioner was burnt by naxals for which F.I.R. dated 25.01.2013 was also lodged. 6. The petitioner was served with letter no. 413 dated 21.02.2013 wherein an allegation regarding fundamental breach of agreement was made and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the agreement be not terminated. Further, on 24.01.2013, the machinery of the petitioner was burnt by naxals for which F.I.R. dated 25.01.2013 was also lodged. 6. The petitioner was served with letter no. 413 dated 21.02.2013 wherein an allegation regarding fundamental breach of agreement was made and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the agreement be not terminated. The petitioner submitted representation vide letter dated 22.02.2013 mentioning therein that the electric/telephone poles and trees which were to be removed is coming in the way of completion of work. The specific case of the petitioner is that in spite of this letter, no action was taken by the respondents and the counsel submits that specific statement to this effect has been made in paragraph no. 12 of this writ petition. 7. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to another letter dated 28.02.2013 which was filed by the petitioner in response to aforesaid letter no. 413 dated 21.02.2013, indicting the circumstances due to which the petitioner could not complete the work within time. 8. However, vide another letter dated 18.03.2013, again the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the agreement of the petitioner be not terminated, which was duly responded by the petitioner vide letter dated 25.03.2013. 9. The petitioner thereafter submitted detailed representation dated 04.06.2013 raising the grievance, however the respondent vide letter dated 16.07.2013 asked the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of mobilisation advance. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been repeatedly raising this grievance in connection with non removal of the poles and trees and which was not duly taken care of by the respondent. 10. Thereafter the petitioner was served with letter dated 09.01.2014 as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ petition wherein it was alleged that the petitioner is not taking any interest in the work. It was also alleged that the petitioner has committed fundamental breach of the agreement. 11. Pursuant to this letter dated 09.01.2014 the petitioner duly responded vide letter dated 15.01.2014 wherein the petitioner had stated that the work will be completed by 31st of March 2014. 12. He submitted that on account of ensuing Lok Sabha Election, letter was issued to the respondent dated 25.03.2014 wherein the petitioner was asked to stop the work w.e.f. 01.04.2014. 13. 12. He submitted that on account of ensuing Lok Sabha Election, letter was issued to the respondent dated 25.03.2014 wherein the petitioner was asked to stop the work w.e.f. 01.04.2014. 13. Thereafter the petitioner was served with impugned order of termination of the agreement dated 29.04.2014 as contained in Annexure-17 to the writ petition wherein the agreement has been terminated by alleging fundamental breach of agreement. 14. While assailing the order of termination of the agreement, counsel for the petitioner has specifically submitted that this amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice, as the letter preceding this impugned letter dated 29.04.2014, terminating the agreement was letter dated 24.04.2014, which was never served upon the petitioner. He submits that he has made specific statement at paragraph nos. 28 and 31 of the writ petition that the letter dated 24.04.2014 was never served upon the petitioner and otherwise also it appears that only two days time was granted to the petitioner to respond to letter dated 24.04.2014. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that after issuance of reply by the petitioner dated 15.01.2014, as contained Annexure-14 to the writ petition the authorities were satisfied with the reply by the petitioner and did not take any action against the petitioner pursuant to their letter dated 09.01.2014. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner, submits, that the impugned order of termination of the agreement has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that on this ground alone, the impugned order dated 24.04.2014 is fit to be set aside. 15. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter immediately preceding the letter of termination ought to have been served upon the petitioner and the same having not been served, the impugned letter of termination of agreement is fit to be set aside on account of gross violation of principles of natural justice. 16. However, during the course of argument, counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the court on the point as to how the petitioner has been prejudiced by non service of show cause notice as contained in memo no. 969 dated 24.04.2014. This show cause notice dated 24.04.2014 has been annexed along with the counter affidavit as contained in Annexure-K. ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS 17. 969 dated 24.04.2014. This show cause notice dated 24.04.2014 has been annexed along with the counter affidavit as contained in Annexure-K. ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS 17. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand by referring to the various correspondences between the parties has submitted that petitioner was served with repeated letters in connection with the progress of work and repeated show cause notices were issued to the petitioner as to why the agreement be not terminated. Counsel for the respondent by referring to the letter no. 488 dated 02.03.2013 submits that pursuant to the letter dated 28.02.2013 issued by the petitioner, the department had taken action for the purpose of removing the pole and the trees and simultaneously the petitioner was informed by this letter that the petitioner should continue with rest of the work and where ever these hindrances are coming, those portion should be left out. She submits that this communication which was admittedly served upon the petitioner as is apparent from the supplementary affidavit which has not been brought on record by the petitioner along with the writ petition and the petitioner is raising a grievance that the poles, trees which were to be removed, having not been removed, the petitioner could not complete the work. 18. On the point of service of show cause notice dated 24.4.2014 immediately preceding the termination of agreement which was terminated on 29.04.2014 , she submits that upon visit by the representative of the respondents, on the spot, it was found that nobody was present and the work was stopped and thereafter this letter was sent to the petitioner through post and the impugned order dated 29.04.2014 was passed without waiting of the show cause reply by the petitioner. She could not dispute the fact that the show cause immediately preceding the impugned order is dated 24.04.2014 and the impugned order was passed on 29.04.2014 just within the gap of four days. However, she submits that repeated show cause notices were issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order and accordingly no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by non service of show cause notice dated 24.04.2014 as the petitioner admittedly did not completed the work by 31.03.2014 as per his own undertaking. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 19. However, she submits that repeated show cause notices were issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order and accordingly no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by non service of show cause notice dated 24.04.2014 as the petitioner admittedly did not completed the work by 31.03.2014 as per his own undertaking. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 19. Before entering into the merits of the case this court finds it proper to refer to order of this court dated 29.06.2018 wherein it has been recorded that this court made a query to the counsel appearing for the petitioner, as to whether all the letters mentioned in the impugned order dated 29.4.2014 are on record or not. Upon this it was found that a number of letters which are referred to in the impugned order are not on record and accordingly counsel prayed for time to seek instruction and file affidavit annexing the document which are available to the petitioner. 20. Pursuant to order dated 29.06.2018 the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 06.07.2018, interalia, and filed certain communications including letter No. 488 dated 02.03.2013 issued by the Executive Engineer, the show cause letter no. 1166 dated 29.05.2013 and the petitioner’s response to this letter as contained in letter dated 04.06.2013. Petitioner has also filed the affidavit dated 26.09.2013 which was filed by the petitioner before the respondent authority, wherein the petitioner had stated that due to serious illness he could not complete the work in time. The petitioner has also brought on record another letter dated 431 dated 15.02.2014 issued by the Department wherein the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the agreement be not terminated. However, from the record of the case, it appears that this letter dated 15.02.2014 was never responded to by the petitioner. 21. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on record this court finds that the only explanation of the petitioner for non completion of the work is that that the petitioner had throughout raised his grievance regarding the poles, trees etc. which were to be removed by the respondent, but were not removed in spite of repeated representations and replies to show cause notices issued to the petitioner. 22. The petitioner was admittedly served with letter no. which were to be removed by the respondent, but were not removed in spite of repeated representations and replies to show cause notices issued to the petitioner. 22. The petitioner was admittedly served with letter no. 488 dated 02.03.2013 which the petitioner has filed by way of supplementary affidavit, wherein the petitioner was directed to do remaining portion of the work leaving aside the hinderance due to non removal of pole /tree , but neither this letter has been filed along with the writ petition nor this fact has been disclosed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. The petitioner has not even mentioned in the writ petition about receipt of this letter dated 02.03.2013 which was issued to the petitioner pursuant to the petitioner’s letter dated 28.02.2013 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The communication dated 2.3.2013 and its compliance, if any, has an important bearing in the matter and the same having not been disclosed in the writ petition amounts to material suppression of fact by the petitioner from this court. Moreover ,it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had completed all the work as per the directions contained in letter no. 488 dated 02.03.2013. 23. It further appears from the affidavit dated 26.09.2013 which was filed by the petitioner before the authority indicating that the cause of non completion of work by the petitioner was on account of serious illness as claimed by the petitioner and mentioned by the petitioner in the affidavit itself. Filing of this affidavit before the respondent authority has also not been disclosed in the writ petition although this affidavit has been referred to in the impugned order of termination of contract. 24. This court further finds that the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was served with show cause letter dated 09.01.2014 as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ petition which was duly responded to by the petitioner vide letter dated 15.01.2014 and the petitioner has made specific statement at paragraph no. 24 of the writ petition as follows:- “That therefore the authorities were satisfied with the letter of the petitioner dated 15.01.2014 for their slow pace of work and that is why no action was taken against the petitioner, despite the letter no. 106 dated 09.01.2014.” 25. 24 of the writ petition as follows:- “That therefore the authorities were satisfied with the letter of the petitioner dated 15.01.2014 for their slow pace of work and that is why no action was taken against the petitioner, despite the letter no. 106 dated 09.01.2014.” 25. This court finds that pursuant to the order dated 29.06.2018, a supplementary affidavit was filed and the petitioner has annexed letter no. 431 dated 15.02.2014 wherein the respondent had issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the agreement of the petitioner be not terminated. This fact also has not been disclosed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. The petitioner has stated in para 24 of the writ petition that the authorities were satisfied with the letter of the petitioner dated 15.01.2014 for their slow pace of work, but this court finds that this statement is not correct. 26. So far as violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, this court finds that immediately preceding the order of termination, the show cause dated 24.04.2014 was said to be issued to the petitioner just four days prior to passing of the order of termination. But from the records it appears that this show cause notice was never served upon the petitioner and there is no material on record, produced by the respondents, to show that this letter was ever served upon the petitioner. Thus this court finds that show cause notice dated 24.04.2014 which was immediate preceding impugned order of termination dated 29.04.2014 was never served upon the petitioner. 27. This court further proceeds to examine as to whether the petitioner has been prejudiced by non service of this show cause notice dated 24.04.2014 and accordingly whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner. 28. From the entire records of the case and also during the course of argument, counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the court as to how prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to non service of notice dated 24.04.2014. 29. This court finds that the petitioner has not at all been prejudiced on account of non service of notice dated 24.04.2014 as the petitioner has no explanation what so ever for non completion of work in spite of his affidavit dated 26.09.2013 giving the reason for non completion of work as his illness and his readiness and willingness to complete the work. The said affidavit was accompanied with a revised programme for completion of work by 31.03.2014 and admittedly the petitioner could not honour his own undertaking. This fact has not even been disclosed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. The petitioner while responding to letter no. 106 dated 09.01.2014 issued by the respondent, filed letter dated 15.01.2014 wherein the petitioner clearly mentions that petitioner will complete the work by 31.03.2014 and admittedly the petitioner again could not honour his own undertaking. This fact has not been disclosed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. Vide letter dated 15.02.2014, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the agreement of the petitioner be not terminated. In spite of service of this show cause dated 15.2.2014, the petitioner never responded to the show cause notice. This fact has also not been disclosed in the writ petition. 30. Considering the aforesaid facts this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has no explanation whatsoever for not abiding by his own undertaking for completion of work by 31.3.2014 and accordingly non service of show cause notice dated 24.4.2014 which was the notice just preceding the order of termination of the agreement dated 29.04.2014 has not prejudiced the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Therefore this court is not inclined to set-aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2014 in spite of non service of show cause notice dated 24.04.2014. 31. Accordingly, the petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate or establish as to how he was prejudiced by non- service of the show cause notice dated 24.04.2014 to the petitioner as the petitioner does not have any explanation for non completion of work by 31.03.2014 in spite of his own repeated undertakings to complete the work by 31.03.2014. 32. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, hence this writ petition is dismissed.