ORDER : 1. Heard, Mr. Saurav Arun, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard, Mr. Kumar Sundaram, A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) For quashing the order dated 04.11.2010, passed vide Memo no. 833 as contained in Annexure-11, whereby and whereunder the contract entered into by the petitioner with the respondent-authorities has been rescinded and in furtherance thereof, earnest money and security money, amounting to the tune of Rs. 3,85,000/- has been forfeited; (ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities not to encash the earnest money deposited by the petitioner by means of N.S.C. during the pendency of the instant writ application; (iii) For issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities not to give effect to the impugned order dated 04.11.2010 as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application. 4. However, during the course of argument, counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer in relation to refund of earnest money and the security money amounting to Rs. 3,85,000/- which has been forfeited by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition and accordingly forfeiture of the security money and the earnest money by the impugned order is under challenge. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- (a) Vide agreement dated 28.11.2006, the work was allocated to the petitioner for construction of road from PWD (Kharik) to Maramdiri of length of 5.550 km. A letter dated 28.11.2006 was issued and as per the letter, the work was to commence from 28.11.2006 and was to be completed by 27.08.2007. i.e. the total period of nine months. (b) Immediately after issuance of order dated 28.11.2006, a letter dated 30.11.2006 was issued by the Engineer in Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand to the Executive Engineer, Works Division, Rural Works Department, Chatra mentioning therein that the work to be executed by various agreements are required to be suspended and pursuant to this, a letter dated 08.12.2006 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to stop further work as the documents relating to tender and the comparative details of the tender was being sent for verification. (c) A letter dated 16.05.2008 was issued by the authorities of the state wherein it was observed that the said agreement should be closed and the security money as well as earnest money should be refunded to the petitioner. A similar letter was issued by the authorities dated 25.06.2009 and these letters are contained in Annexure-6 and Annexure-7 to the writ petition. This was for want of clearance from the forest department. (d) Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the portion of the road was in connection with the land which was under forest department being the forest land and necessary clearances were not taken by the Department, therefore while executing the work, the petitioner has faced with lots of objections from the Forest Department and in spite of that when the petitioner did not stop the work, a memo no. 210 dated 26.04.2008 was issued by the Forest Department that the work should be immediately stopped, otherwise criminal case will be instituted against the department as well as against the petitioner being a contractor. (e) Ultimately vide letter dated 12.05.2010, the petitioner was asked to complete the work excluding the portion of the road which falls within the forest area and the work was to be completed prior to rainy season only. It was also mentioned that if the work is not completed, then necessary steps will be taken for the purpose of cancellation of the agreement and for forfeiting of the earnest money and security money. (f) Pursuant to this, the petitioner made a request letter dated 04.09.2010 for enhancement of the rate, as the work was allotted in the year 2006 and the petitioner was asked to complete the work in the year 2010 and on account of the fact that the work was not completed due to latches on the part of the department itself. (g) Thereafter on 17.09.2010, a letter was issued to the petitioner that the request of the petitioner for enhancement of rate will be considered and the petitioner was sought to be blamed for non-completion of the work within time as per the original agreement and it was also mentioned that if the work is not completed within three months, the agreement will be cancelled and the petitioner will be black listed. (h) Suddenly, the petitioner was served with a letter no. (h) Suddenly, the petitioner was served with a letter no. 20 dated 04.11.2010 as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has not completed the work within the stipulated time although the petitioner was asked to complete the work barring the road which falls within the forest area and for that purpose final measurement was done on 19.09.2010. By the impugned order, the entire burden of non completion of work has been thrown upon the petitioner and not only the agreement was cancelled, but the security money as well as earnest money has also been forfeited. (i) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is totally arbitrary and abuse of the power in as much as the respondents have failed in their duty while floating the tender itself because the necessary clearances ought to have been taken by the respondents before floating the tender and before awarding the work to the petitioner which was to be completed within the stipulated period of nine months. A lots of hindrances had come in the way of the petitioner including the letters of the Forest Department itself wherein they have not permitted the petitioner to complete the work and the department itself had issued letters directing the petitioner not to proceed with the work. It is argued that there being no fault on the part of the petitioner, forfeiture of the security money as well as earnest money is wholly arbitrary and illegal. So far as cancellation of agreement is concerned, the petitioner submits that he has confined the writ petition only to the refund of earnest money and the security money, as the work which has been allotted to the petitioner cannot to be done at the rate it has been allotted. (j) Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in (2010) 1 SCC 655 paragraph no. 21 to 25 to submit that the petitioner cannot be punished on account of the fault on the part of the department. 6. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits by referring to paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit that after examining the document the Engineer-in-chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary Rural Works Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide his letter no. 449 dated 28.02.2007 sent back the document and the petitioner was asked to resume the work. 6. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits by referring to paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit that after examining the document the Engineer-in-chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary Rural Works Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide his letter no. 449 dated 28.02.2007 sent back the document and the petitioner was asked to resume the work. He further referred to the letter no. 210 dated 26.04.2008 mentioning that the letter was issued by the Forest Department for excluding the portion of the road which was falling in the forest area and necessary clearances was required to be taken, but the petitioner was asked to complete the work and the rest work is only small portion of the work falling within the forest area. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not completed the rest of the work, so the earnest money and the security money has been rightly forfeited. However, counsel for the respondent did not dispute the fact that necessary clearances which were required to be taken for the purpose of construction of the road was not taken by the respondents and accordingly there were latches on the part of the respondents in not taking such clearances prior to floating of the tender. He further submits that the petitioner never represented before the authority regarding any hindrances having been faced by the petitioner for the completion of work. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and after going through the records of the case, this court finds that the tender in this case was floated by the respondents without taking necessary clearances and the respondent department itself had issued letters to the petitioner to stop the work and at one point of time the respondent itself was of the view that the agreement has to be closed and the earnest money as well as security money should be refunded to the petitioner. From perusal of Annexure-4 to the writ petition it appears that necessary clearances from the forest department were not taken and petitioner was continuously doing the work, but the Forest Department directed the petitioner to stop the work, but ultimately when the petitioner did not stop the work, the forest department wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer that if the petitioner does not stop the work, then they will take step against the petitioner as well as against the department. The respondents ultimately asked the petitioner to do the work only in the year 2010 and by that time due to enhancement of rate in every area, the petitioner made a request for enhancement of rate to the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 17.09.2010. In response to this request the petitioner was sought to be blamed for non-completion of the work within time as per the original agreement and it was also mentioned that if the work is not completed within three months, the agreement will be cancelled and the petitioner will be black listed. 8. From perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition it is apparent that the entire responsibility for not completing the work has been fastened upon the petitioner without realizing the fact that there was gross negligence on the part of the respondents in floating the tender without taking necessary clearances and the work was stopped at the instructions of the respondents themselves. Accordingly the action of the respondents in forfeiting the security money and the earnest money by the impugned order is apparently arbitrary and illegal and against equity in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order as contained in memo no 833 dated 4.11.2010 as contained in annexure-11 to the writ petition is set-aside only to the extent it relates to forfeiture of security money and earnest money. Accordingly the Respondent no. 2 is directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- (being the amount on account of security money and earnest money) within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that if the amount is not refunded within the said period by the concerned respondent, interest @ 12% per annum will be paid by the respondents from the date it has been deposited with the department till the date of the payment.