JUDGMENT : ARUN KUMAR JHA, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “I. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 6 communicated through the letter dated 04.01.2018 bearing memo No. BRRDA (HQ)-PMGSY -304/2016-66 (Annexure-P/40), issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 7, by which the communication was made with respect to the fact that the claim of the petitioner was rejected. II. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure-P/40) passed by the Respondent No. 6, by which the Respondent No. 6 in complete departure of the notice dated 17.12.2013, issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 5, by which the tender of the petitioner was rescind on the ground that the work assigned to the petitioner was not concluded within the time frame. III. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure P/40) passed by the respondent No. 6, by which the Respondent No. 6 failed to appreciate that the bank guarantee provided by the petitioner was duly accorded and approved by the Departmental Tender Committee in its meeting 27.02.2009 communicated through the letter dated 02.03.2009 bearing Memo No. 38 (Annexurep/5). IV. To ask an explanation-cum-show cause from the Respondents No. 2 to 5, asking therein that under what statutory authorization, they use to change their stand in rescinding the work allotted to the petitioner. V. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents No. 2 to 5 to revalidate the agreement the agreement including the rate of tender work bearing S.B.D/PMGSY/1 of 2009-10 dated 16.05.2009, because the petitioner is still ready to complete the work subject to revision of rate. VI. To stay the operational effect of the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 6 communicated through the letter dated 04.01.2018 bearing memo No. BRRDA(HQ)-PMGSY-304/2016-66 (Annexure -P/40), issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 7, because the Respondent Authorities are adamant to forfeit the bank guarantee of the petitioner. VII. VI. To stay the operational effect of the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 6 communicated through the letter dated 04.01.2018 bearing memo No. BRRDA(HQ)-PMGSY-304/2016-66 (Annexure -P/40), issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 7, because the Respondent Authorities are adamant to forfeit the bank guarantee of the petitioner. VII. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities from taking any coercive steps pertaining to the forfeiture of the bank guarantee provided by the petitioner. VIII. Any other relief or reliefs.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into the agreement bearing agreement No. SBD/PMGSY/1 of 2009-10 dated 16.05.2009 with Respondent No. 5 for construction of road under the Bihar Rural Roads Development Agency in District-Sheohar. Pursuant to the deed of agreement, the petitioner provided the bank guarantee of Nepal Investment Bank bearing Bank Guarantee (BLD) Bond No. 001GAUPB090037 amounting to Rs. 9 lac only. The said guarantee was for performance guarantee. Thereafter, petitioner further provided bank guarantee from Laxmi Bank, Nepal towards advance mobilization. The aforesaid guarantee provided by the petitioner was approved and accorded by the Departmental Tender Committee in its meeting dated 27.02.2009, which was communicated through letter dated 02.03.2009 bearing Memo No. 1385. Meanwhile, the aforesaid agreement was terminated by the Respondents by their notice dated 17.11.2013 published in daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar”. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before this Court in CWJC No. 6389 of 2014 challenging the termination of the aforesaid agreement. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.11.2015 disposed of the matter while recording the fact that Clause-24 in the agreement provides elaborate provision for Dispute Redressal System through Empowered Standing Committee consisting of three members. Taking into consideration the same, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Empowered Standing Committee within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and thereupon the Empowered Standing Committee was to proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In terms of the order passed in the writ petition, the petitioner filed his representation before the authority for constitution of Empowered Standing Committee in terms of Clause 24 of the Agreement and since no positive steps were taken by the respondents, the petitioner again preferred CWJC No. 6357 of 2016, which was disposed of on 17.03.2017. In terms of the order passed in the writ petition, the petitioner filed his representation before the authority for constitution of Empowered Standing Committee in terms of Clause 24 of the Agreement and since no positive steps were taken by the respondents, the petitioner again preferred CWJC No. 6357 of 2016, which was disposed of on 17.03.2017. In the light of order passed in CWJC No. 6357 of 2016 along with its analgoues case, the petitioner’s case was heard by the Empowered Standing Committee (for short ‘the Committee’). The Committee observed that the petitioner had provided an Indian Address for communication, but the Bank Guarantee which was submitted to Karya Pramandal, Belsand and Karya Pramandal Sheohar belonged to the Bank situated in Nepal and the petitioner was directed to submit Bank Guarantee of a scheduled bank of Bihar as per Clause 32.2 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) for getting the relief. The petitioner refused to submit the Bank Guarantee of the scheduled bank situated in State of Bihar saying that his earlier bank guarantee was accepted by the authority. The Committee, however, held that the Bank Guarantee issued from the bank situated in Nepal was not valid as per Clause 32.2 of the SBD, therefore, acceptance of the Bank Guarantee from the Bank Situated in Nepal would be against the law. Finally, the committee rejected the claim of the petitioner against termination of Agreement vide order dated 18.12.2017. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents failed to perform their duties in accordance with contract and deviated themselves from the facts and erred in giving direction to the petitioner to execute the work assigned to it. The learned counsel further submitted that without considering the ground for delay for non-performance of work within the stipulated period, the respondent-authority, in exercise of its power under Clause 52.2 of the Agreement, rescinded the contract of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has done substantial work in adverse situation and lots of outstanding amounts are dues from the Respondents to the petitioner. Even the Bank Guarantee amounts are there and the Respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrongs as the agreed advance amount was not paid to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondents cannot forfeit the security amount. Even the Bank Guarantee amounts are there and the Respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrongs as the agreed advance amount was not paid to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondents cannot forfeit the security amount. The Respondents are liable to be restrained from blacklisting the petitioner and also from invoking the bank guarantee. It has further been submitted that the total claim of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 18,21,21,803.12/-is pending before the Respondents, which is liable to be paid by the Respondents. The rejection of claim of the petitioner by the respondent authorities is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The order passed by the Respondent No. 6 dated 18.12.2017 was communicated through letter dated 04.01.2018 bearing Memo No. BRDA(HQ.)-PMGSY-304/2016-66. The said order was challenged before the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Bihar. Patna, which was registered as Reference Case No. 10 of 2018. The said reference case was heard by the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Bihar, Patna on 08.02.2018 and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Bihar, Patna declined to interfere with the matter on the ground of jurisdiction and thereafter, the petitioner opted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have determined to rescind the contract. The respondents are also illegally, contemplating and threatening to blacklist the petitioner company although the petitioner is not responsible for any delay to complete the work. The respondents are also taking steps to illegally invoke the bank guarantees furnished by the Investment Bank of Nepal on behalf of petitioner. If the Bank Guarantees are invoked and the amount under the bank guarantees are paid by the bank to the respondents and the petitioner is blacklisted by the Respondents, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The learned counsel further submitted that the schedule of work was not completed in May 2010 but respondent understood the fact and they have extended the completion date up-to 13.09.2013. Therefore, it is clear that there were some faults on part of respondents in performing their reciprocal duties and also admitted the problems faced by the petitioner at site and for this reason, the respondents extended the completion time of the contract. Therefore, it is clear that there were some faults on part of respondents in performing their reciprocal duties and also admitted the problems faced by the petitioner at site and for this reason, the respondents extended the completion time of the contract. The Committee has not considered the relevant document submitted by the petitioner and the alleged termination of agreement by the respondents is illegal and liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of the agreement, the petitioner was required to complete the said contractual work by 25.05.2010, but the petitioner did not complete the said contractual work in spite of several reminders by the respondents till 27.08.2013, thereafter the respondent-authority issued the notice vide letter No. 533 dated 14.09.2013 and the petitioner was directed to submit his show-cause as to why the agreement be not terminated. In response to the show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 30.09.2013 seeking extension of time till 31.03.2014. It has further been submitted that as even after lapse of more than three years, the petitioner did not complete the work assigned to him, therefore, the respondent-department took the decision to terminate the agreement. The termination of agreement was communicated vide Letter No. 687 dated 05.10.2013 fixing the date for final measurement and the petitioner was stated to remain present on the date fixed for measurement. The said letter dated 05.10.2013 was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 6186 of 2014, in which, letter dated 05.10.2013 was set-aside and the respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh show-cause notice, if so advised, and to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department, Belsand vide letter No. 163 dated 16.03.2016 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner with a direction to submit the reply within one week. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated 16.03.2016 and finding it to be unsatisfactory and dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department, Work Division, Belsand vide letter No. 288 dated 09.05.2016 terminated the tender agreement bearing No. ISBD/2009-2010 due to non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as for noncompliance of the contractual work. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred CWJC No. 6357 of 2016 for constitution of Empowered Standing Committee as per Clause-24 of the Agreement and he also preferred another writ petition bearing CWJC No. 9157 of 2016 in which the petitioner challenged the letter of termination dated 09.05.2016. Both the writ petitions were disposed of jointly by the learned Single Judge observing that ‘Be that as it may, let the petitioner should approach to the Committee, nominate the name of any persons mentioned in the letter dated 11.07.2016 and Empowered Standing Committee will be obliged to adjudicate the dispute in between the parties’. Thereafter, the Empowered Standing Committee after hearing the parties including the petitioner rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 18.12.2017 on the ground of non-submission of bank guarantee by the petitioner from any scheduled bank of the State as per Clause 32.2 of the SBD. Learned counsel also submitted that this writ application is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the material available on record and further considering the rival submission, the main issue involved in the present case is whether non-furnishing of bank guarantee from a scheduled bank of Bihar by the petitioner could have been condoned by the official respondents against the specific terms of the contract since other issues relate to disputed question of facts that are not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. It appears that as per Clause 32.2 of the SBD, the Bank Guarantee was to be from any scheduled bank situated in the State of Bihar, whereas the Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner came from a bank situated in Nepal. It further appears that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity for submission of the Bank Guarantee from the bank situated in the State of Bihar as per aforesaid Clause 32.2 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD), but the petitioner failed to do so. This intransigent approach of the petitioner led to the Committee to terminate the proceeding before it while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to nullify the order of rescission of contract. In these circumstances, the Empowered Standing Committee after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 18.12.2017. It is relevant to quote the order dated 18.12.2017, which is impugned herein:- 8. In these circumstances, the Empowered Standing Committee after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 18.12.2017. It is relevant to quote the order dated 18.12.2017, which is impugned herein:- 8. If the petitioner has failed to abide by the specific terms of SBD, we do not think that the impugned order needs any interference. Thus, the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case, so as to interfere with the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Committee. 9. It is well settled principle of law that the constitutional courts are expected to exercise restrain in interfering with the administrative decisions and they ought not to substitute their views substituting that of the administrative authority. 10. In the light of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the respondents in passing the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the reasons assigned for the same are well justified, which do not require interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all other disputed issues before the competent authority in terms of agreement especially clause 24 of the SBD.