ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. 2/PMC/Vividh-295/2014-402 dated 23.08.2017 (Annexure-23 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Secretary (Engineering), Department of Water Resource Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent no.3) whereby the petitioner has been debarred from participating in future tenders/contracts. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to remove all the bottlenecks and impediments which are beyond the control of the petitioner to complete the construction of the two projects i.e. Bhairwa and Kesho dam projects within a reasonable period. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no. 2 vide notice No. 04/2004-05 and 1/2006-07 invited tenders for construction of residual works under Bhairwa Reservoir Scheme (Bhairwa Project) and construction of residual works under Kesho Reservoir Scheme (Kesho Project) in Hazaribag and Koderma district respectively. The petitioner participated in the tenders and was awarded both the works. According to the petitioner, in course of execution of the project, it suffered several obstructions and hurdles by the villagers raising demand for compensation and rehabilitation due to acquisition of their land. The said situation was informed to the respondent-authorities, however, the same remained unresponded. The petitioner applied for extension of time for a period of 15 months mentioning all the reasons for delay in execution of contract. However, the issue of acquisition of land and rehabilitation of the displaced persons still subsisted and the work could not be executed. Before expiry of the first extension period, the petitioner again requested for a further extension of time for completion of project till 30.06.2010, however the respondents refused to grant any extension despite acknowledging the fact that the project work was not progressing due to the inaction of the department itself in fulfilling its obligations. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as contained in letter no. 2/PMC/Vividh-295/2014-247 dated 19.05.2017 by the respondent no. 3 to explain as to why the petitioner should not be debarred from participating in any other tender/project of the Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand as it was unable to complete the awarded works even after a delay of 9 years. The petitioner filed the show cause reply on 16.06.2017 reiterating the reasons for non-completion of the project within the scheduled time. However, the respondent no. The petitioner filed the show cause reply on 16.06.2017 reiterating the reasons for non-completion of the project within the scheduled time. However, the respondent no. 3, vide impugned letter dated 23.08.2017 debarred the petitioner from participating in future tenders of the Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand. Hence the present writ petition. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to non-approval of the revised estimate for payment of compensation to the displaced persons, the petitioner has been unable to proceed with the works and the extended time as granted by the respondents has already lapsed. Moreover, the project was already hampered due to shortage of fund and the petitioner is now crippled to proceed further. It is further submitted that none of the letters or representations of the petitioner was ever replied by the respondent authorities which clearly indicated their callous attitude towards the petitioner ultimately affecting the execution of the contract adversely in passage of time. Nonetheless, the petitioner, in order to maintain healthy and cordial relation with the respondents, continued with the project work. The letters/reports written/ prepared by the field officers of the respondent authorities would clearly indicate that right from 2005 to 2014, both the projects remained stalled due to inability of the respondents to lawfully acquire the land for the projects and to maintain consequential law and order situation which arose at regular intervals as the landowners were not willing to give up their land unless they were paid suitable compensation and also properly rehabilitated. A meeting was convened by the respondent no. 2 on 20.12.2014 and it was resolved that the site of Kesho Project should be initiated by 27.12.2014 and so far Bhairwa Project is concerned, the displacement and rehabilitation work be done after the closure of river by February 2015. It is also submitted that respondent no.3 while issuing the impugned letter has assigned the reason that 75% of the land acquisition was already completed in the year 1990 which is absolutely false as the respondents’ field officers by way of several letters have informed that in the year 2014, the land acquisition process was at its initial stage. Even if it is assumed that 75% of the land was acquired, yet for the construction of the dam, 100% acquisition of the land was required. Even if it is assumed that 75% of the land was acquired, yet for the construction of the dam, 100% acquisition of the land was required. The other reason assigned in the impugned letter that the matter regarding administrative approval is an internal matter of the department, is evasive and shows lack of cogent reasoning as the decision on the administrative approval was in fact communicated by the respondent authorities to the petitioner on 03.01.2014. It is further submitted that so far as the issue of law and order and disturbance created by the anti-social elements is concerned, it is the petitioner who had been repeatedly informing the respondents. The Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Hazaribagh in his report dated 27.01.2009 had given a detailed description in this regard. In the minutes of meeting dated 29.12.2014 also, the decision was taken that in case of any law and order situation, appropriate assistance may be taken from the district administration. The only ground taken in the impugned letter with respect to the Kesho Project is that the petitioner has allegedly taken an excess payment of Rupees 24 crores. Such an allegation of excess payment is a matter to be adjudicated by the competent arbitral tribunal and it cannot be a ground for debarring the petitioner. The terms of the agreements pursuant to which the petitioner was awarded the works in question, contain no provision for debarring the contractor from participating in any future tender. Moreover, the respondent no. 3 has also not been vested with any such power much less the power exercised by him in debarring the petitioner from participating in any future tender. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument puts reliance on the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Projects Construction Corporation Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (L.P.A No. 312 of 2018). 5. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the works were allotted to the petitioner during the financial year 2005-07. The completion period was 30 months from the date of written order to commence the work, but in spite of sincere departmental assistance, these works could not be completed by the petitioner company even after more than 10 years of execution of the agreement. The completion period was 30 months from the date of written order to commence the work, but in spite of sincere departmental assistance, these works could not be completed by the petitioner company even after more than 10 years of execution of the agreement. This has seriously affected the irrigation projects meant for the benefit of the poor people of the area who are mostly tribals and of deprived section of society. The delay in completion of works did not only adversely affect the beneficiaries but also burdened the State exchequer in getting the balance work executed on higher cost due to price rise on several counts. Conclusively, it has seriously affected the public interest. It is further submitted that the work of Bhairava Project was allotted to the petitioner on 21.06.2005 on ‘turn key’ basis having project value of Rs.5573.37 lakhs under agreement no. 01F2/12 2005-06 dated 02.07.2005. The completion period was till 01.01.2008. The said project is incomplete even after delay of nine years. It has been found that only the main components of dam such as dam outlet, spillway and spill channel have been constructed. The river closure was done in May-June, 2016 but even after more than a year, the earthwork till top level of dam, boulder pitching in upstream (river site) could not be done, leading to serious threat in monsoon season, 2016. In spite of repeated requests and assurances of the petitioner, the schemes is still incomplete leading to loss of proposed irrigation potential of 3600 hectare supposed to be created on completion of the schemes/projects thereby depriving the poor beneficiaries of the area. The work of Kesho Project was allotted during financial year 2006-07 on ‘turn key’ basis having contract value of Rs. 6693.99 lakhs under agreement no. 15F2/2006-07 dated 23.03.2007. The completion period was thirty months from the date of written order to commence the work. The said scheme is also incomplete even after a delay of nine years. It has been found that only partial work towards the main components of dam such as dam outlet, spillway and spill channel has been done. In spite of repeated requests, the petitioner company did not pay any heed towards the progress of the said work. Accordingly, a direction was issued vide letter no. It has been found that only partial work towards the main components of dam such as dam outlet, spillway and spill channel has been done. In spite of repeated requests, the petitioner company did not pay any heed towards the progress of the said work. Accordingly, a direction was issued vide letter no. 362 dated 13.05.2016 by the Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hazaribagh to evaluate the actual work done by the petitioner. In turn, an evaluation report of work done dated 27.07.2016 under the signatures of Chief Engineer-Water Resources Department, Hazaribagh, Superintending Engineer-Water Ways Circle, Hazaribagh, Executive Engineer-Water Ways Division, Barhi, and Executive Engineer-Quality Control Division, Hazaribagh was submitted to the department. The said evaluation report reveals that Rs. 2585.196 lakhs approximately has been found paid in excess to the petitioner against the total payment of Rs.4474.816 lakhs. During the audit, the Office of Accountant General, Jharkhand has also noticed excess payment of Rs.15.06 crores in Kesho Project. It is also submitted that the impugned order has been passed after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on considering its reply. The matter was referred to the Department of Cabinet Vigilance, Government of Jharkhand for enquiry by the Technical Vigilance Cell and the enquiry report was submitted showing prima facie huge fraudulent payment in this scheme/project. Thus, the entire matter was placed before the Government and consequently an FIR was lodged against the tainted officers of the department as well as the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner was awarded the tenders for construction of residual work of Bhairwa Project and Kesho Project in Hazaribagh and Koderma districts respectively. The projects were not completed within the time frame. Both the parties have their respective claims against the delay occurred in completion of the project. The petitioner has contended that the project was delayed due to non-acquisition of the land falling within the project sites and thus the villagers continuously protested against the said projects. The projects were not completed within the time frame. Both the parties have their respective claims against the delay occurred in completion of the project. The petitioner has contended that the project was delayed due to non-acquisition of the land falling within the project sites and thus the villagers continuously protested against the said projects. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that even after a delay of 9 years, the petitioner failed to complete the projects in spite of sincere departmental assistance provided to it seriously affecting the said irrigation projects meant for the benefit of the poor people of the area who are mostly tribals and marginal section of society and as such the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for the proposed punishment followed by issuance of the impugned letter debarring the petitioner from participating in future tenders and thus the same does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. The specific case of the petitioner is that the dispute resolution mechanism has been provided under both the agreements by way of referring the dispute initially to the Engineer-in-Charge and thereafter to the Chief Engineer. When the party is not satisfied with the decision, the matter may be referred to arbitration as mentioned in clause 23 of the conditions of contract and the petitioner has invoked the said clause as early as on 21.06.2017 by issuing the notices of claim and dispute in respect of the Bhairwa Project to the Engineer-in-Charge i.e Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Hazaribagh. Subsequently, when no response was received from the Engineer-in-Charge, another notice dated 17.08.2017 was issued by the petitioner to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to file an application before this Court on 10.10.2017 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being A.A No. 32 of 2017 praying inter alia for appointment of an arbitrator. In case of Kesho Project also, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause on 10.09.2016 and 24.04.2017 respectively to the abovementioned authorities and when no response was made, an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed before this court being A.A No. 38 of 2017. 8. In case of Kesho Project also, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause on 10.09.2016 and 24.04.2017 respectively to the abovementioned authorities and when no response was made, an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed before this court being A.A No. 38 of 2017. 8. Under the aforesaid circumstance, this Court refrains from entering into the merit of the respective contentions of the parties with respect to the delay caused in completion of the projects as the same would be determined under the alternative dispute resolution mechanism as provided in the agreements. 9. So far the challenge to the impugned letter dated 23.08.2017, whereby the petitioner has been debarred from participating in future tenders of the department is concerned, it appears that the same does not mention the period of debarment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief Gen. Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 held as follows: “17. That apart, the power to blacklist a contractor whether the contract be for supply of material or equipment or for the execution of any other work whatsoever is in our opinion inherent in the party allotting the contract. There is no need for any such power being specifically conferred by statute or reserved by contractor. That is because “blacklisting” simply signifies a business decision by which the party affected by the breach decides not to enter into any contractual relationship with the party committing the breach. Between two private parties the right to take any such decision is absolute and untrammelled by any constraints whatsoever. The freedom to contract or not to contract is unqualified in the case of private parties. But any such decision is subject to judicial review when the same is taken by the State or any of its instrumentalities. This implies that any such decision will be open to scrutiny not only on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice but also on the doctrine of proportionality. A fair hearing to the party being blacklisted thus becomes an essential precondition for a proper exercise of the power and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant thereto. The order itself being reasonable, fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offence is similarly examinable by a writ court. 25. A fair hearing to the party being blacklisted thus becomes an essential precondition for a proper exercise of the power and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant thereto. The order itself being reasonable, fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offence is similarly examinable by a writ court. 25. Suffice it to say that “debarment” is recognized and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the “debarment” is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.” 10. It may thus be construed that though the power of debarment is recognized as an effective mode to punish the erring party, the debarment can never be permanent, rather the term of the debarment would depend upon the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the erring contractor. 11. The learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.06.2018 rendered in the case of National Projects Construction Corporation Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (L.P.A No. 312 of 2018), has held that whenever any work is to be executed under the government contracts, the land site must be given to the contractor free from all encumbrances. If the land acquisition is to be done, the same should be completed prior to issuance of the notice inviting tender. It has further been held that it has become the fashion of the State of Jharkhand to publish a notice inviting tender for a particular work having stipulation for completion of schedule work within the time frame without obtaining clearance of the forest department, acquiring the land or providing proper and adequate police protection in naxal affected areas. In the present case also in the impugned order itself, it has been accepted that the work was allotted to the petitioner before completing the acquisition proceeding. 12. Under the facts and circumstance of the present case, the impugned letter dated 23.08.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 debarring the petitioner from participating in future tender/contracts without mentioning any period of debarment is quashed and set aside. 12. Under the facts and circumstance of the present case, the impugned letter dated 23.08.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 debarring the petitioner from participating in future tender/contracts without mentioning any period of debarment is quashed and set aside. So far the other reliefs sought by the petitioner are concerned, it may take recourse of alternative resolution mechanism as provided in the concerned agreement itself. 13. It is however clarified that the factual observations made in this order are confined to the issue of debarment only and the same will not affect the cases of the respective parties in any other proceeding relating to the contracts in question. 14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation. 15. I.A. No. 8295 of 2017 also stands disposed of.