ORDER : (Prayer: WP No. 7615 of 2021:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of cancellation passed in Letter No. C/1958/2018 Tho.Nu.A1 dated 23.02.2021 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. WP No. 7616 of 2021:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of cancellation passed in Letter No. C/1958/2018 Tho.Nu.A1 dated 23.02.2021 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. WP No. 7619 of 2021:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of cancellation passed in Letter No. C/TN/02-17/2018 Vu.Se.Po dated 23.02.2021 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. WP No. 7622 of 2021:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of cancellation passed in Letter No. C/1958/ 2018 Tho.Nu.A1 dated 23.02.2021 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.) 1. Assailing the orders dated 23.02.2021 passed by the second respondent, cancelling the tenders awarded to the petitioner for four items of work, the present writ petitions are filed. 2. According to the petitioner, he participated in the various tenders floated by the third respondent on 01.06.2020, 08.06.2020 and 17.06.2020 respectively. He submitted his bids on 03.07.2020 for four items of work namely (i) construction of six class room building to the Ekalavya Model Residential School at Killur Village, Tirupattur District; (ii) construction of boys hostel to accommodate 100 boys at Ekalavya Model Residential School at Killur Village, Tirupattur District; (iii) construction of boys hostel to accommodate 100 boys at Ekalavya Model Residential School at Sengarai in Namakkal District; and (iv) Principal and Teacher Quarters (12 Nos) to Ekalavya Model Residential School at Sengarai in Namakkal District. The bids received from the various bidders were opened on 09.07.2020 and the bid of the petitioner was declared as the lowest bid in respect of the four items of work, aforesaid. The bids received from the various bidders were opened on 09.07.2020 and the bid of the petitioner was declared as the lowest bid in respect of the four items of work, aforesaid. To this effect, a letter of acceptance was issued by the second respondent by a proceedings dated 28.08.2020 however, it is stated that it was served on the petitioner only on 21.12.2020. Thereafter, on 11.02.2021, 16.12.2020, 24.11.2020 and 24.11.2020 respectively, agreements of contract were signed by the petitioner with the fourth respondent. The petitioner further stated that even before the site was handed over to him, show cause notices came to be issued. Without providing reasonable time to the petitioner to offer his explanation to the said notices, the fifth respondent issued orders dated 23.02.2021, thereby terminating the contracts awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, the present four writ petitions. WP No. 7615 of 2021 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the site was handed over to the petitioner only on 11.02.2021, however, even before that, he had engaged his men and machineries and removed the hard rocks existing in the work site with the help of a JCB Hitachi vehicle and spent a sum of Rs.20 lakhs. It is also stated by the learned counsel that soon after the contract was awarded in his favour, the petitioner had approached the officials of the TANGEDCO during December 2020 itself and got the electricity service connection to the site in question effected on 13.02.2021. While so, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 03.02.2021, which the petitioner received on 09.02.2021. In other words, even before handing over the site on 11.02.2021, the show cause notice dated 03.02.2021 was issued, which was received by the petitioner on 09.02.2021, whereby he was called upon to show cause as to why the tender awarded in his favour be not cancelled. The learned counsel further invited the attention of this Court to the reference made in the show cause notice dated 03.02.2021, which suggests that the show cause notice was prepared even during December 2020 and kept ready. Thus, it is contended that the second respondent, with a pre-determined mind, has passed the impugned order, cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner on the ground that he did not commence the work for about two months. WP No. 7616 of 2021 4. Thus, it is contended that the second respondent, with a pre-determined mind, has passed the impugned order, cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner on the ground that he did not commence the work for about two months. WP No. 7616 of 2021 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a letter of acceptance of the contract dated 29.10.2020 was served on the petitioner on 21.12.2020 after two months. Even before the receipt of the acceptance of contract, an agreement dated 16.12.2020 was entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The site was handed over to the petitioner on 24.12.2020 and immediately, he had engaged his men and machineries to clear the site on 24.11.2020. He had also put up a shed for accommodating the labour as well as storage of the materials between 29.11.2020 and 05.12.2020. On 24.12.2020, markings were made in the site in the presence of the fourth respondent. On 25.12.2020, the earth work commenced and completed on 27.12.2020. On 26.12.2020, bore point was marked and on 28.12.2020, cleaning and sectioning of the earth work were undertaken. The petitioner also said to have stored the materials for putting up the construction in the material shed. While so, the second respondent issued the show cause notice dated 03.02.2021, purportedly prepared during December 2020, which was received by the petitioner on 10.02.2021. It is stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner fell sick and was hospitalised and therefore, he could not send a reply to the show cause notice dated 03.02.2021. Thereafter, on 17.02.2021, the fourth respondent sent a notice stating that there is no progress in the work after 31.12.2020 and directed the petitioner to continue the work immediately without any further delay. In the communication dated 17.02.2021, it was also stated that if the work is not commenced forthwith, the earnest money deposited will be forfeited besides the contract will be cancelled. Even before the petitioner could respond to the communication dated 17.02.2021, the second respondent passed the impugned order on 23.02.2021, cancelling the contract. WP No. 7619 of 2021 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a letter of acceptance of the contract dated 14.11.2020 was served on the petitioner, four months after declaring him as the successful bidder. On 24.11.2020, he entered into an agreement with the fourth respondent. WP No. 7619 of 2021 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a letter of acceptance of the contract dated 14.11.2020 was served on the petitioner, four months after declaring him as the successful bidder. On 24.11.2020, he entered into an agreement with the fourth respondent. The site was handed over to the petitioner on 18.12.2020 and immediately, he had engaged his men and machineries to clear the age old trees and bushes from the site. In the meantime, soil test was conducted on 05.12.2020 and the centering materials were stored in the work spot on 16.12.2020. On 23.12.2020, a temporary shed was erected where construction materials were stored besides it served as a place for the labourers to stay. On 24.12.2020, the trees in the site which were cut, were removed from the site and the clearing works were completed on 29.01.2021. On 14.02.2021, the petitioner obtained electricity service connection and thereafter he commenced the fabrication work. While so, the second respondent issued the show cause notice dated 03.02.2021, purportedly prepared during December 2020, which was received by the petitioner on 10.02.2021. It is stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner fell sick and was hospitalised and therefore, he could not send a reply to the show cause notice dated 03.02.2021. Thereafter, the second respondent passed the impugned order on 23.02.2021, cancelling the contract. WP No. 7622 of 2021:- 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a letter of acceptance of the contract dated 14.11.2020 was served on the petitioner four months after declaring him as the successful bidder. On 24.11.2020, he entered into an agreement with the fourth respondent. The site was handed over to the petitioner on 18.12.2020 and immediately, he had engaged his men and machineries to clear the age old trees and bushes from the site. In the meantime, soil test was conducted on 05.12.2020 and the centering materials were stored in the work spot on 16.12.2020. On 23.12.2020, a temporary shed was erected where construction materials were stored besides it served as a place for the labourers to stay. On 24.12.2020, the trees which were cut, were removed from the site and the clearing works were completed on 29.01.2021. On 14.02.2021, the petitioner obtained electricity service connection and thereafter commenced the fabrication work. On 23.12.2020, a temporary shed was erected where construction materials were stored besides it served as a place for the labourers to stay. On 24.12.2020, the trees which were cut, were removed from the site and the clearing works were completed on 29.01.2021. On 14.02.2021, the petitioner obtained electricity service connection and thereafter commenced the fabrication work. While so, the second respondent issued the show cause notice dated 03.02.2021, purportedly prepared during December 2020, which was received by the petitioner on 10.02.2021. It is stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner fell sick and was hospitalised and therefore, he could not send a reply to the show cause notice dated 03.02.2021. Thereafter, the second respondent passed the impugned order on 23.02.2021, cancelling the contract. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in effect, would contend that the impugned orders of termination are arbitrary, besides being contrary to the special conditions stipulated in the agreements of contract. As per the Special conditions, if for any reason, the contractor did not commence the work within 15 days from the date of acceptance of the agreement, a fine of Rs.1,000/- will be recovered per day and thereafter, the fine amount will be Rs.500/- per day. Further, if the work is not commenced within 30 days, then the contract will be terminated by forfeiting the earnest money deposit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner has abandoned the contract or did not commence the work, the respondents ought to have invoked the special conditions of the contract and intimated the petitioner about the deduction of fine of Rs.1000/- or Rs.500/- per day. In the present case, the special conditions imposed in the agreements have not been given effect to, but the fifth respondent has issued the show cause notices, followed by orders of termination, which according to the learned counsel, are contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract and are hence, liable to be set aside. 8. The learned Government counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 drew the attention of this court to the counter affidavit and submitted that since there was no progress after handing over the site to the petitioner, considering the significance of the project and the fact that time is essence, the Managing Director, TAHDCO issued show cause notices to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notices or give any explanation for the inordinate delay caused by him in the progress of the work. Moreover, the Field Officers reported that they were unable to trace the petitioner and even if traced, it was very difficult to approach him. In such circumstances, the tenders awarded to the petitioner were terminated by the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 23.02.2021, which are valid in law and in accordance with the contract conditions. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner has not started the work, after awarding the contracts and handing over the site, the show cause notices were issued and the date mentioned in the show cause notices is a typographical error, which does not mean that it is pre-determined. It is also pointed out that the petitioner himself admitted that as he was admitted in a hospital due to illness, he failed to submit explanation to show cause notices which clearly shows that he is not in a position to complete the works. Thus, there was no mala fide in passing the orders of cancellation. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of urgency and time bound to complete the subject works, the revised tender notification dated 25.02.2021 came to be issued. Therefore, according to the learned Government counsel, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would contend that as on the date when the orders of cancellation were passed on 23.02.2021, the petitioner did not commence the work at all. The averment that the petitioner had spent more than Rs.20 lakhs to level the ground and for other allied work, is untenable. According to the learned counsel, the sites in question were kept idle until the orders of cancellation impugned in these writ petitions, were passed. The learned counsel further produced the photographs to substantiate his contention that the petitioner has totally abandoned the site and did not commence the work. According to the learned counsel, by the time when the orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions, were passed, the petitioner ought to have completed 25% to 30% of the work, however, he has not even commenced the work. Therefore, the orders of termination passed by the second respondent warrant no interference at the hands of this court. 10. According to the learned counsel, by the time when the orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions, were passed, the petitioner ought to have completed 25% to 30% of the work, however, he has not even commenced the work. Therefore, the orders of termination passed by the second respondent warrant no interference at the hands of this court. 10. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent also submitted that the work order was issued on 28.08.2020. The Executive Engineer, Vellore Division/fourth respondent in his letter dated 31.12.2020 reported that the petitioner did not turn up to take possession of the site and he delayed it on his own. The Executive Engineer has also expressed his displeasure by stating that he was made to insist the petitioner to sign the agreement and to take up the site. After strenuous efforts, the petitioner could be reached and he signed the agreement only on 11.02.2021. After taking over the site, there was no progress in the work. As per the agreement, 25% to 30% of the work should have been completed, but the petitioner was a total non-starter in relation to the work. Further, the orders of cancellation were preceded by show cause notices dated 03.02.2021, receipt of which was admitted by the petitioner. However, he did not respond to the same by giving any explanation. The progress of the work has been periodically watched and the petitioner has not commenced the work at all. Even the earlier 9 contracts awarded to him have been completed by the petitioner with delay. In any event, due to the delay in commencing the work, the contracts came to be rescinded. On the other hand, the respective sixth respondents in these writ petitions, soon after the award of the contract, swung into action and made enormous progress in the construction work. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. 11. The learned counsel for the respective sixth respondents in these writ petitions, in whose favour the tender was awarded by the second respondent after rescinding the contract with the petitioner, would submit that the tender in favour of the petitioner was cancelled due to non-commencement of the work by him. According to the learned counsel, a notification No.8/2020-21 was issued on 25.02.2021 and the tender applications were processed on 07.05.2021. According to the learned counsel, a notification No.8/2020-21 was issued on 25.02.2021 and the tender applications were processed on 07.05.2021. The sixth respondent in these writ petitions participated and were declared as the successful bidders for the work which were awarded in favour of the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, the respective sixth respondents have taken over the sites in question, cleared the sites which had rocks and stones, laid the foundation columns and made substantial progress in the construction of the building. Though the petitioner is fully aware of the re-tender issued by the second respondent on 25.02.2021, soon after cancelling the contracts with the petitioner by the orders dated 23.02.2021, for the reasons best known to him, he did not challenge the re-tender notification. Even though the petitioner has filed applications to implead the respective sixth respondents in these writ petitions, he has not filed any application to challenge the re-tender notification. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that the sixth respondents in the respective writ petitions have spent huge amount for putting the building. He also relied on the photographs produced to show that substantial progress has been made in the construction activities. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the writ petitions may be dismissed. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 13. During the pendency of these writ petitions, a fresh tender dated 25.02.2021 was called for by the second respondent for the very same works, for which contracts were awarded to the petitioner. However, in the fresh tender, it was specifically mentioned that the contractors, to whom show cause notice or order of cancellation of the earlier tender was served, are not entitled to participate in the same. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the instigation of the fifth respondent herein, fresh tender was conducted on 10.06.2021, in which the respective sixth respondents were awarded the contract. Therefore, the petitioner has filed petitions to implead the respective sixth respondents in these writ petitions and this Court by order dated 16.07.2021, allowed the impleading petitions and the respective sixth respondents were added as parties to these writ petitions for effective adjudication. Therefore, the petitioner has filed petitions to implead the respective sixth respondents in these writ petitions and this Court by order dated 16.07.2021, allowed the impleading petitions and the respective sixth respondents were added as parties to these writ petitions for effective adjudication. At the same time, it must be stated that the petitioner has not amended the prayer in the writ petitions or filed fresh writ petitions questioning the re-tender floated by the second respondent on 25.02.2021. 14. The petitioner also filed petitions in WMP Nos. 16240, 16242, 16244 and 16250 of 2021 praying to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respective sixth respondents from executing the works awarded to the petitioner herein pending disposal of the writ petitions. These petitions were filed on 22.07.2021 and the same were opposed by the respective sixth respondents on the ground that they have taken over the sites even in the month of April 2021 and have made substantial progress in the construction and therefore, they need not be restrained from proceeding with the contractual works. Having regard to the above submissions, this Court has not passed any order restraining the respective sixth respondents from proceeding with the contractual works. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner was entrusted with four items of work by the respondents 1 to 5, which are morefully set out in the work orders dated 28.08.2010, 29.10.2020, 14.11.2020 and 14.11.2020 issued to him. It is contended on the side of the petitioner that after issuing the work orders, the fourth respondent entered into agreements with the petitioner only on 11.02.2021 with a delay of more than three to six months as the case may be. However, the petitioner had acted in a pro-active manner and started levelling the lands consisting of hard rocks, bushes etc. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent authorities, it was stated that the petitioner did not exhibit any interest to sign the agreements; and inspite of repeated phone calls made by the fourth respondent / Executive Engineer, Vellore Division, the petitioner did not turn up to sign the contracts. In this regard, reliance was placed on the letters dated 22.01.2021 and 29.01.2021 sent by the Executive Engineer, Vellore Division, the fourth respondents herein. The letter dated 22.01.2021 was directly addressed to the petitioner pointing out the delay in commencement of the work. In this regard, reliance was placed on the letters dated 22.01.2021 and 29.01.2021 sent by the Executive Engineer, Vellore Division, the fourth respondents herein. The letter dated 22.01.2021 was directly addressed to the petitioner pointing out the delay in commencement of the work. Subsequently, in the letter dated 29.01.2021 sent by the Executive Engineer, Vellore Division addressed to the General Manager (Technical) TAHDCO, Chennai, apart from pointing out the delay in commencing the work by the petitioner, it was also stated that the petitioner had dug 32 foundation pits and left the site unattended without taking any safety measures, such as, fencing etc., which has posed a grave threat to the labourers working in the adjoining site, falling into the pit after sunset when they return home. The relevant portion of the letter dated 29.01.2021 is usefully extracted below:- “TAMIL” 16. Subsequently, the Executive Engineer, Vellore Division, fourth respondent in these writ petitions, sent a letter dated 17.02.2021 addressed to the petitioner reiterating the delay in commencing the work. In the letter dated 17.02.2021, it was stated as follows:- “TAMIL” 17. It could be seen from averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition No. 7616 of 2021 that the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid letter sent by the fourth respondent. The letters referred to above prima facie stand testimony to the fact that there is enormous delay on the part of the petitioner in commencing the contractual works. It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has made substantial progress in the contractual works, prior to passing of the impugned orders of termination. Whereas the letters issued by the fourth respondent/Executive Engineer, Vellore Division prima facie reveal that there is slackness on the part of the petitioner in executing the works. The aforesaid letters also reveal that inspite of steps having been taken to contact with the petitioner, he could not be reached and therefore, the agreements were entered into with the petitioner after much delay. Therefore, it is evident that there was considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in signing the agreements and also taking over the sites and commencing the works. 18. As already stated, the orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions, were passed by the second respondent on 23.02.2021, rescinding the contracts issued to the petitioner. Therefore, it is evident that there was considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in signing the agreements and also taking over the sites and commencing the works. 18. As already stated, the orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions, were passed by the second respondent on 23.02.2021, rescinding the contracts issued to the petitioner. Immediately, on 25.02.2021, a re-tender notification was issued in which the respective sixth respondents were awarded the contracts and they have taken up the sites in question. On the other hand, challenging the orders of termination dated 23.02.2021, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions on 19.03.2021. Thereafter, he has filed applications to implead the respective sixth respondents, which were allowed on 16.07.2021. However, he has not chosen to challenge the re-tender notification dated 25.03.2021 issued by the second respondent in which the respective sixth respondents were awarded the contracts. By then, the respective sixth respondents in the writ petitions have made substantial progress in the construction, as seen from the photographs produced before this Court. Therefore, it could be inferred that the failure on the part of the petitioner to challenge the re-tender notification dated 25.02.2021 has resulted in the respective sixth respondents proceeding with the construction at an advanced pace during the pendency of these writ petitions. 19. That apart, the photographs produced on the side of the respective sixth respondents evidencing the progress of construction so far made, would go to show that Ekalavya model residential school at Sengarai (Kolli Hills) in Namakkal District along with Higher Secondary Science lab and toilet block (3 Nos) has been completed by the contractor and the building was handed over to the respondents on 25.06.2021. It is further stated that in respect of construction of Girls hostel at Killur, the contractor had completed 60% of the work as on 05.07.2021 and the second floor roof slab has been laid. Similarly, in respect of the other items of work, it is stated that the progress of the construction is at advanced stage or at the verge of completion. Such being the present scenario, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioner does not survive for consideration at this stage, as it would tantamount to setting the clock back. Such being the present scenario, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioner does not survive for consideration at this stage, as it would tantamount to setting the clock back. If any order is passed in these writ petitions would have an adverse impact in the contracts undertaken by the respective sixth respondents in these writ petitions and it would prejudice them from proceeding with the works intended for the welfare of the public at large. 20. Notwithstanding the above, it is to be pointed out that on 03.02.2021, show cause notices have been issued by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner as to why the contracts need not be terminated. The petitioner ought to have issued replies to those notices dated 03.02.2021 and brought to the notice of the second respondent the pace of the work. However, the petitioner did not sent any reply to the show cause notices dated 03.02.2021. According to the petitioner, soon after receipt of the show cause notices, he was hospitalised and he could not cause reply to the show cause notices dated 03.02.2021. Though the petitioner raised an allegation that the show cause notices issued are pre-determined, a cursory glance at the same would show that the date mentioned therein is a typographical error, as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent authorities. In any event, before terminating the contracts on 23.02.2021, show cause notices were issued by the second respondent, receipt of which has also been admitted by the petitioner. When the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show cause notices dated 03.02.2021, the orders of termination came to be passed. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the second respondent has strictly adhered to the principles of natural justice before passing the orders of termination, which are impugned in these writ petitions. 21. At this juncture, it is also to be noted that the power of the judicial review under Article 226 of the constitution of India, is very limited in contractual or commercial matters. This court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters, unless a clear cut case of arbitrariness or malafide or bias or irrationality is made out [Refer: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and another, 2019 SCC online 1133]. This court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters, unless a clear cut case of arbitrariness or malafide or bias or irrationality is made out [Refer: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and another, 2019 SCC online 1133]. Applying the said ratio decidenti, the present writ petitions are not maintainable in law. 22. Thus, viewing from any angle, this Court is of the view that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in these writ petitions. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.