Arun Kumar Jha, J.—In compliance of the direction contained in the first paragraph of the previous order dated 18.04.2023 by which the Joint Registrar (List), Patna High Court, Patna, was directed to initiate action against the officials who were all involved in not listing this matter on that day in spite of specific order dated 04.04.2023 whereby the District Magistrate, Saharsa, was directed to appear in person with complete record and to submit action taken report on the next date of hearing, the Joint Registrar (List) has submitted that the matter has been placed before the learned Registrar General for necessary action in the matter. 2. Under the circumstances, the learned Registrar General is hereby directed to submit action taken report in the matter within three months. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, claiming the following reliefs:— “(i) For quashing of the order dated 23.10.2018 contained in Memo No. 262-1 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 4, the District Magistrate, Saharsa has cancelled the agreement dated 08.08.2017. (ii) For a direction to the respondents to extend the agreement period so that the petitioner could perform his contractual obligations as per agreement. (iii) For a direction to the respondents to provide the petitioner the list of the places for installation of the Solar Lights. (iv) For a direction to the respondents not to act upon the impugned order of cancellation of the agreement dated 23.10.2018 contained in Memo No. 262-1 as if it never existed. (v) For a declaration that— (a) The impugned order dated 23.10.2018 contained in Memo No. 262-1 is without jurisdiction and as such, is nullity in the eye of law. (b) The respondent District Magistrate has absolutely no jurisdiction to cancel the agreement. (c) The respondent District Magistrate, Saharsa was obliged only to consider the grievance of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition vide CWJC No. 4239 of 2018 in the light of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 17.09.2018 and cancellation of the agreement which was never the issue in the said writ petition is without jurisdiction and the impugned order dated 23.10.2018 is designed to overreach the order of the Hon'ble Court. (d) The respondents cannot be allowed to raise issue of rate after execution of the agreement between the parties and the rate, the terms and conditions of the agreement are binding on the parties. (e) No notice was served upon the petitioner as to cancellation of the agreement and as such, the impugned order dated 23.10.2018 is in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. (f) The impugned order dated 23.10.2018 is arbitrary and malafide and designed to frustrate the direction of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.09.2018 passed in CWJC No. 4239 of 2018. (vi) For any other relief or consequential reliefs to which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case”. 5. The short facts, according to the petitioner, are that the respondents floated advertisement for supply and installation of Solar Semi High Mast Street Lights (hereinafter referred to as "Solar Lights") in 10 units in Sonbarsa, 9 units in Patarghat, 9 units in Banma Ithari. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner participated in the tender along with other five bidders. Thereafter, on 03.07.2017 a meeting of purchase committee /tender committee was held under the Chairmanship of the respondent District Magistrate in which the petitioner was qualified in technical bid and subsequently, he was also qualified in financial bid and, accordingly, the petitioner was selected for the work of installation of Solar Lights as the petitioner has quoted the rate of Rs. 3,85,000/- per unit which was found the lowest. Thereafter, vide letter no.842- 2 dated 08.08.2017, the respondent no. 5 has communicated the petitioner that he has been selected for the aforesaid work and directed the petitioner to enter into the agreement. Accordingly, on 08.08.2017, agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 for supply and installation of 28 Four Arm Solar Semi High Mast Light in Saharsa at the rate of Rs. 3,85,000/- per unit. After execution of the agreement, the petitioner gave orders for manufacturing and supply of raw materials/equipments from Philips Company for Rs. 36,00,000/- (Thirty Six Lacs) for the present work. The petitioner made request several times to the respondent District Planning Officer orally as well as in writing to provide him the list of places for installation of Solar Lights, but unfortunately, the respondent failed to provide the list of places. 36,00,000/- (Thirty Six Lacs) for the present work. The petitioner made request several times to the respondent District Planning Officer orally as well as in writing to provide him the list of places for installation of Solar Lights, but unfortunately, the respondent failed to provide the list of places. In place of providing list of places for installation of Solar Lights, the respondent District Planning Officer sent a letter dated 06.02.2018 to the petitioner stating therein that an instruction in this regard has been sought from the department and action would be taken after obtaining such instruction from the department. When the respondent failed to provide the list of places for installation of Solar Lights, the petitioner was constraint to file CWJC No. 4239 of 2018 in this High Court and prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to provide list of places to install Solar Semi High Mast Street Lights at District - Saharsa for the reason an agreement to this effect has already been entered into between petitioner and respondent no. 3 way back on and installation was only pending due to not providing such list of places. Further for issuance of writ/writs in the nature of mandamus to extend the agreement period for further three months for the reason the time of agreement due the fault on the part of the respondent no. 3. Also for the issuance of writ/writs commanding the respondent authority in the alternative to compensate this petitioner against the investment and loss incurred due to not performing his work to the tune of Rs. 36 Lacs suffered due to negligence of the respondents. The aforesaid CWJC No. 4239 of 2018 was disposed of vide order dated 17.09.2018 by this Court with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Respondent No. 2 (respondent no.4 herein) regarding his grievances mentioned in the writ petition within a period of two weeks and the respondent no. 2 was directed to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter. Thereafter, on 28.09.2018, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent no. 4 in the light of the aforesaid order dated 17.09.2018 and requested to direct the respondent District Planning Officer to provide him the list of places for installation of Solar Lights. Thereafter, on 28.09.2018, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent no. 4 in the light of the aforesaid order dated 17.09.2018 and requested to direct the respondent District Planning Officer to provide him the list of places for installation of Solar Lights. The petitioner also requested to grant extension of time in the agreement. But unfortunately the respondent District Magistrate without taking into consideration of the grievance of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition cancelled the agreement vide Memo No. 262-1 dated 23.10.2018 annexed as Annexure-9. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority, the petitioner filed the present Writ. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid letter dated 23.10.2018 of the respondent District Planning Officer is very unfortunate as once the agreement has been executed between the parties, the only action for the parties is to perform the contractual obligations as per agreement and there is no occasion of seeking instruction after execution of the agreement with regard to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that on account of non-providing of list of places for installation of Solar Lights, the petitioner could not install the Solar Lights as per agreement as the obligation of the petitioner was completely depended upon the reciprocal obligation of the respondents and without allocation and demarcation of the places, the petitioner could not perform his contractual obligations. In the meantime, the stipulated period for the work expired due to laches on part of the respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court while disposing of CWJC No. 4239 of 2018 directed the petitioner to file representation regarding his grievance mentioned in the writ petition and the respondent District Magistrate was directed to dispose of the representation regarding grievance of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition and as such, the respondent no. 4 was only required to consider the grievance of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition, but unfortunately, the respondent District Magistrate without any jurisdiction cancelled the agreement which was absolutely no issue in the writ petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to cancel the agreement as it was neither an issue in the writ petition vide CWJC No. 4239 of 2018 nor the District Magistrate has got any jurisdiction to cancel the agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to cancel the agreement as it was neither an issue in the writ petition vide CWJC No. 4239 of 2018 nor the District Magistrate has got any jurisdiction to cancel the agreement. The District Magistrate is not a party in the agreement nor the agreement provides any power or jurisdiction to the District Magistrate to cancel the agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner as to cancellation of the agreement and as such, the cancellation of the agreement is in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The learned counsel further submitted that the order of cancellation of agreement is malafide, arbitrary and designed to frustrate the direction/order of this Court dated 17.09.2018 passed in CWJC No. 4239 of 2018. The learned counsel further submitted that the agreement was cancelled by the respondent District Magistrate taking into consideration the rate of other districts in connection with installation of Solar Lights. The ground of cancellation of agreement is also arbitrary and malafide as the respondents have not got any jurisdiction for taking into the consideration the rate of other districts particularly in the present circumstance when the rate is agreed by the parties including the respondents and the agreement has already been executed at that rate and after agreement the issue of rate cannot be raised rather the rate agreed and mentioned in the agreement is binding on the parties. The learned counsel further submitted that the rate quoted by the petitioner was found to be the lowest and most responsive and duly considered by the purchasing committee/tender committee headed by the respondent District Magistrate himself and thereafter, on that rate the petitioner was selected and agreement was executed and therefore, the rate agreed by the parties are binding on the parties and the action of cancellation of the agreement on the ground of comparison of rate with other District is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel also submitted that the ground of cancellation of agreement is beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement and there is no provision in the agreement to justify the cancellation of the agreement. 7. The learned counsel also submitted that the ground of cancellation of agreement is beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement and there is no provision in the agreement to justify the cancellation of the agreement. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents while justifying the action of the respondents submitted that the petitioner has quoted higher rate for supplying of Solar Lights while compared to other districts as in other districts the rates were quoted at Rs.2,96,000/-, Rs.2,73,000/- and Rs.1,74,000/- whereas the petitioner had quoted the rate of Rs.3,85,000/- and for this reason, the respondent-authority has cancelled the agreement only with reference to Clause 7 of the N.I.T. Hence, no interference is required by this Court in this matter. 8. Having considered the material available on record and further considering the submissions of the parties, it is admitted position that the parties have entered into the agreement on 08.08.2017 for supply and installation of 28 Four Arm Solar Semi High Mast Light in the district of Saharsa at the rate of Rs.3,85,000/-per unit. Thereafter, it appears, the petitioner requested several times the authorities to provide him the list of places for installation of Solar Lights. But, when the respondent failed to provide the list of places, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 4239 of 2018 in this High Court, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2018 with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Respondent No. 2 (respondent no.4 herein) regarding his grievances mentioned in the writ petition within a period of two weeks and the respondent no. 2 was directed to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter. In terms of aforesaid liberty, the petitioner filed a representation on 28.09.2018. But the respondent District Magistrate rejected the representation of the petitioner and also cancelled the agreement vide Memo No. 262-1 dated 23.10.2018. It is to be noted that the respondents should have filed review petition, if their intention was to cancel the tender and other proceedings. On the other hand, they have cancelled the tender process abruptly. 9. On 18.04.2023, this Court has passed the following orders:— “This matter was mentioned to be taken. Hence, Court Master was asked to secure the file. On the other hand, they have cancelled the tender process abruptly. 9. On 18.04.2023, this Court has passed the following orders:— “This matter was mentioned to be taken. Hence, Court Master was asked to secure the file. Joint Registrar (List), Patna High Court, Patna, is hereby directed to initiate action against the officials who are all involved in not listing this matter today in spite of specific order dated 04.04.2023 whereby the District Magistrate, Saharsa, was directed to appear in person with complete record. It is to be taken note of that personal appearance’s matter is required to be given priority in listing. Action taken shall be reported on the next date of hearing. 02. Pursuant to the previous order dated 04.04.2023, Mr. Vaibhav Chaudhary, District Magistrate, Saharsa, is present in the Court to assist in the matter. 03. Prima facie, the petitioner has made out a case. His work order has been cancelled after execution of agreement only with reference to Clause-7 of the Notice Inviting Tender (N.I.T.) read with the clause imposed in the agreement. The sole reason for cancellation of work order in the favour of the petitioner is that he has quoted higher rate insofar as supplying of Solar Lights while compared to other Districts. It is reliably learned that in other district the rates were quoted at Rs.2,96,000/-, Rs.2,73,000/- and Rs.1,74,000/-, whereas the petitioner had quoted Rs. 3,85,000/-. No doubt it is on a higher price, but at the same time, in all fairness, the petitioner was a successful bidder and agreement has been executed. The concerned authority instead of cancelling should have given a proposal for supply of solar lights at par with other districts. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby directed to get instruction from petitioner/his client as to whether is he willing to supply Solar Lights on par with other districts like at the rate of Rs.2,96,000/- or not? Similarly, whether the official-respondents could accommodate the petitioner in supplying solar lights at the rate of Rs.2,96,000/- on par with the similarly situated districts, the successful bidder in another District is stated to have supplied solar lights at the rate of Rs.2,96,000/-. 05. Similarly, whether the official-respondents could accommodate the petitioner in supplying solar lights at the rate of Rs.2,96,000/- on par with the similarly situated districts, the successful bidder in another District is stated to have supplied solar lights at the rate of Rs.2,96,000/-. 05. We have also noticed that Annexure-9 annexed with the writ petition is a document dated 23.10.2018, which bears the signature of District Magistrate, Saharsha and it appears the order contained in this document has been passed with reference to Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4239 of 2018. Now certain documents have been placed for perusal of this Court by the District Magistrate, Saharsha, who has been directed to appear in person and this document, which contains the same order, has been signed by a Committee bearing members as District Magistrate, Deputy Development Commissioner and District Programme Officer. But the contents are all same. The District Magistrate, Saharsha, is directed to verify this issue by filing a personal affidavit and clarify prior to next date of hearing. 06. Re-list this matter on 02.05.2023. 07. It is made clear that no further time would be granted as the matter is pending consideration for last five years.” 10. In terms of aforesaid order dated 18.04.2023, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit on 28.04.2023. In paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 whereof, it has been stated as follows:— “3. That it is relevant to mention here that the specifications of the materials and works are different in each district for supply and installation of solar lights. The specifications of the present work have already been given in the agreement itself. The petitioner quoted his rate at the rate of Rs. 3,85,000/- per unit on the basis of the specifications of the work which was agreed by the parties and accordingly the agreement was executed. The rate may differ as per specifications in different districts. 4. That however, the petitioner is ready to execute the work at the rate of Rs. 2,96,000/- in terms of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 18.04.2023 and in view of huge investment of the petitioner in the present work. 5. That in the facts and circumstances and in terms of the order dated 18.04.2023 of this Hon’ble Court the petitioner is ready to execute the work at the rate of Rs. 2,96,000/-”. 11. 2,96,000/- in terms of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 18.04.2023 and in view of huge investment of the petitioner in the present work. 5. That in the facts and circumstances and in terms of the order dated 18.04.2023 of this Hon’ble Court the petitioner is ready to execute the work at the rate of Rs. 2,96,000/-”. 11. In terms of the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate, Saharsa has also filed personal affidavit dated 29.04.2023. In para 4, it has been stated as follows:— “4. That in this regard it is stated that annexure no. 09 which was issued on dated 23.10.2018 signed by District Magistrate, Saharsa with reference to C.W.J.C No. 4239/2018 and similarly a document was produced for perusal of lordship by District Magistrate Saharsa during hearing on 18/04/2023 bearing signature of the District Magistrate, Deputy Development Commissioner, District Planning Officer Saharsa having the same contents. Here it is humbly submitted that in official working process. Letters or Orders are prepared in two heads namely office Copy and Final Copy. Office copy is signed by all the concerned officials and assistants, whereas Final Copy is signed by the concerned Final authority. The letter produced for perusal of the Lordship was the office copy having signature of the District Magistrate, Deputy Development Commissioner, District Planning Officer Saharsa. Whereas document bearing single signature is Final Copy which has signature of only one officer i.e. District Magistrate, Saharsa”. 12. It appears that the petitioner is willing to supply Solar Lights at the rate of Rs.2,96,000/- per unit. But the District Magistrate, Saharsa, who was present before this Court on the last occasion, submitted that the scheme for installation of solar lights was closed by the State Government in the year 2020 itself, so it can not be possible to accommodate the petitioner in supplying solar lights at the rate of Rs.2,96,000/-, since the tender was floated under the Chief Minister Area Development Scheme after the MLA of the Assembly concerned recommended for installation of total 28 Four Arm Solar Lights. 13. Having regard to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was successful bidder for installation of Four Arm Solar Lights and was awarded the contract by the District Magistrate of Saharsa district who chaired the purchase committee meeting. 13. Having regard to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was successful bidder for installation of Four Arm Solar Lights and was awarded the contract by the District Magistrate of Saharsa district who chaired the purchase committee meeting. Thereafter, the agreement was entered into by the petitioner and the District Planning Officer and the said agreement contained the stipulation that any dispute arising out of the compliance of the terms of the agreement would be settled before the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, Purchase Committee, Saharsa. Thereafter, some dispute arose over pricing as it was found by the respondent authority that there was much variance in the price of the solar light to be installed in different districts. Prior to that, the petitioner moved before this Court by filing CWJC No.4239 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.09.2018 directing that the petitioner might file a representation before the respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks from the date of the order and the respondent no.2 was further directed to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter. It further appears that the said writ petition was filed with a prayer to direct the District Programme Officer, Saharsa to make available the list of sites where the solar lights were to be installed. However, the District Magistrate, Saharsa recorded his finding that there was much difference between the rates for installation of solar lights in different districts and if the same was allowed to the petitioner, it would cause heavy revenue loss to the State. In these circumstances, the District Magistrate, Saharsa proceeded to cancel the contract and rejected the representation of the petitioner. 14. Perusal of the order dated 23.10.2018 makes it amply clear that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to cancellation of its contract since the petitioner made representation regarding providing it with sites for installation of solar lights as is apparent from the first paragraph of the order dated 23.10.2018 which is reproduced below for reference. 14. Perusal of the order dated 23.10.2018 makes it amply clear that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to cancellation of its contract since the petitioner made representation regarding providing it with sites for installation of solar lights as is apparent from the first paragraph of the order dated 23.10.2018 which is reproduced below for reference. lekgj.kky;] lgjlk] ¼ftyk ;kstuk dk;kZy;] lgjlk½ vkns'k ,e-ds- bUVj izkbtst] ,Xthfc'ku jksM] iVuk }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa lhMCY;wvkbZlh u- 4239@2018 nkf[ky fd;k x;kA fjV ;kfpdk esa vkosnudrkZ }kjk vuqjksèk fd;k x;k gS fd vkosnudrkZ ,oa ftyk ;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] lgjlk ds chp fu"ikfnr ,djkjukek ds vkèkkj ij ftyk ;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] lgjlk dks pkj ck¡g okys lksyj LVªhV ykbZV vfèk"Bkiu gsrq p;fur LFkyksa dh lwph miyCèk djkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k tk;A ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr fjV ;kfpdk dk fu"iknu djrs gq, fnukad 25-09-2018 dks fuEukafdr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS%& Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner may file a representation before the respondent no. 2 within a period of two weeks from today and the respondent no. 2 shall dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 2 within a period of two weeks from today and the respondent no. 2 shall dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. mDr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk jgk gSA ekuuh; foèkk;d Jh jRus'k lknk ds }kjk pkj ck¡g okys lksyj LVªhV ykbV vfèk"Bkiu gsrq dh xbZ vuq'kalk ds vkyksd esa fnukad 20-05-2017 dks fufonk vkeaf=r dh xbZA fnukad 03-07-2017 dks fufonk dk fu"iknu fd;k x;k] ftlesa ,eŒdsŒ bUVjizkbtst] ,Xthfc'ku jksM] iVuk dk nj eks0 & 385000@& ¼rhu yk[k ipklh gtkj½ U;wure ik;k x;kA fufonk esa U;wure nj gksus ds vkèkkj ij fnukad 08-08-2017 dks ,eŒdsŒ bUVjizkbtst] ,Xthfc'ku jksM] iVuk ds lkFk ,djkjukek fd;k x;kA ijUrq dk;kZns'k fuxZr ugha gqvkA dk;kZns'k fuxZr gksus ds iwoZ Kkr gqvk fd leku fof'k"Vrk,a ds pkj ck¡g okys lksyj LVªhV ykbZV dk nj cDlj ftyk esa eks0&296663 @& ¼nks yk[k fN;kuos gtkj N% lkS frjlB½] dSewj ¼HkHkqvk½ esa 272000@& ¼nks yk[k cgÙkj gtkj½ #Œ ,oa leLrhiqj ftyk esa 171954@& ¼,d yk[k ,dgÙkj gtkj ukS lkS pkSou½ #Œ fuèkkZfjr gSA tcfd lgjlk esa U;wure nj eks 0&385000@& ¼rhu yk[k ipklh gtkj½ ik;k x;kA fofHkUu ftyk ds njksa esa vR;fèkd vUrj ds dkj.k izèkku lfpo ;kstuk ,oa fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ls i=kad 1044&2@ ftŒ;ksŒ fnukad 17-10-2017 }kjk ekxZn'kZu dh ekax dh x;hA bl i=k dh izfr ,eŒdsŒbUVj izkbZtst] ,Dthfo'ku jksM] iVuk dks Hkh izsf"kr dh x;hA rRi'pkr~ foHkkx ls ekxZn'kZu izkIr ugha gksus ds mijkUr vèkksgLrk{kjh ds Lrj ls i=kad 1161&2@ ftŒ;ksŒ fnukad& 20-11-2017 ls iqu% ekxZn'kZu dh ekax dh xbZA blh chp ,eŒdsŒ bUVjizkbtst] ,Dthfo'ku jksM] iVuk }kjk pkj ckg okys lksyj LVªhV ykbZV vfèk"Bkiu gsrq p;fur LFkyksa dh lwph dh ekax dh tkrh jgh] ftl lacaèk esa mUgsa i=kad 1214&2@ftŒ;ksŒ fnukad& 30-11-2017 }kjk foHkkx ls ekxZn'kZu ekaxs tkus] lacaèkh lwpuk nh x;hA iwoZ esa Hkh foHkkx ls ekaxh x;h ekxZn'kZu lacaèkh i=k dh izfr ,eŒdsŒ bUVjizkbtst] ,Dthfo'ku jksM] iVuk dks nh x;h FkhA iqu% i=kad 36&1 fnukad 06-02-2018 ,oa 86&1 fnukad 13-03-2018 }kjk ekxZn'kZu gsrq izŒ lfpo] ;kstuk ,oa fodkl foHkkx dks Lekfjr fd;k x;kA ;kstuk ,oa fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk dh fnukad 19-02-2018 ,oa 20-02-2018 dks lEiUu {ks=h; inkfèkdkfj;ksa dh cSBd esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj lksyj LVªhV ykbZV ds vfèk"Bkiu lacaèkh ;kstuk ij vxzsrj dkjZokbZ LFkfxr j[kus dk funs'k fn;k x;kA foHkkx ls ekaxh x;h ekxZn'kZu esa la;qDr lfpo] ;kstuk ,oa fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ds i=kad 1088 fnukad 06-03-2018 }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k fd foHkkxh; i=kad 1929 fnukad 20-04-2015 ds }kjk fuxZr funsZ'k ds vkyksd esa dkjZokbZ dh tk;A mDr i=k esa vU; ftyksa ,oa bl ftys ds nj esa fHkUurk ds lacaèk esa visf{kr vxzsrj dkjZokbZ ds lacaèk esa fLFkfr Li"V ugha dh x;h gSA foHkkx }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'k esa nj fHkUurk ds lacaèk esa fLFkfr Li"V ugha gksus ds dkj.k iqu% i=kad 80&1@ ft-;ks- fnukad 13-03-2018 }kjk Li"V ekxZn'kZu dh ekax dh x;h tks lEizfÙk vizkIr gSA blh chp ,Œ,Œth&4 }kjk lhMCY;wtslh ua- 4239@2018 nkf[ky gksus ds lwpuk nh xbZ ,oa blls lacafèkr ,lvks,Q nkf[ky djus dk funsZ'k izkIr gqvkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa ekeyk fopkjkèkhu gksus ds dkj.k vxzsrj dkjZokbZ LFkfxr jghA mijksDr rF;ksa ls Li"V gS fd leku fof'k"Vrk,a ds pkj ck¡g okys lksyj LVªhV ykbZV dh dher cDlj ftyk esa eksŒ & 296663@& ¼nks yk[k fN;kuos gtkj N% lkS frjlB½] dSewj ¼HkHkqvk½ esa 272000@- ¼nks yk[k cgÙkj gtkj½ #Œ ,oa leLrhiqj ftyk esa 171954@& ¼,d yk[k ,dgÙkj gtkj ukS lkS pkSou½ #Œ gSA ,eŒdsŒ bUVjizkbZtst ,Xthfo'ku jksM] iVuk }kjk lgjlk ftys ds fy, izLrqr nj eksŒ& 385000@&- ¼rhu yk[k ipklh gtkj½ #Œ gSA bl izdkj lgjlk ftys ,oa vU; ftyksa ds nj esa dkQh fHkUurk gSA bl fLFkfr esa ,eŒdsŒ bUVjizkbZtst ,Dthfo'ku jksM] iVuk }kjk izLrqr nj ij pkj ck¡g okys lksyj LVªhV ykbZV Ø; esa cM+s iSekus ij jktLo dh gkfu gksxhA ;g dk;Z foÙkh; vuq'kklu ds vuq:i Hkh ugha gksxk rFkk Hkfo"; esa foÙkh; vfu;ferrk dk vkèkkj cu ldrk gSA ,eŒdsŒ bUVjizkbZtst] ,Dthfo'ku jksM] iVuk ds lkFk fnukad 08-08-2017 dks fu"ikfnr ,djkjukek esa izkoèkkfur gS fd ,djkjukek ds vuqikyu esa mRiUu fooknksa dk fuiVkjk vèkksgLrk{kjh ds le{k fd;k tk,xkA fofHkUu ftyksa ,oa lgjlk gsrq izLrqr nj esa dkQh fHkUurk gksus ds dkj.k ,djkjukek esa of.kZr 'kÙkks± ds vkyksd esa ,eŒdsŒ bUVjizkbZtst] ,Xthfc'ku jksM] iVuk ,oa ftyk ;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] lgjlk ds chp fnukad 08-08-2017 dks fu"ikfnr ,djkjukek dks jí fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ,eŒdsŒ bUVjizkbZtst ,Xthfc'ku jksM] iVuk }kjk izLrqr vkosnu dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA bldh lwpuk lacafèkr dks nh tk;A gñ@& ftyk inkfèkdkjh lgjlk fnukad 23-10-18 Kkikad 262-7@ftk ;ksñ izfrfyfi&,eŒdsŒ bUVjizkbZtst] ,Dthfo'ku jksM] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA izfrfyfi&ftyk ;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] lgjlk dks vxzsrj dkjZokbZ gsrq lwpukFkZ izsf"krA izfrfyfi&{ks=h; ;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] dks'kh izeaMy] lgjlk dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA izfrfyfi&laqDr lfpo] ;kstuk ,oa fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA gñ@& ftyk inkfèkdkjh lgjlk fnukad 22-10-18 15. Not providing opportunity to the petitioner before cancelling its contract amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice as well as it smacks of arbitrariness. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. Food Corpn. of India, (2021) 2 SCC 551 , in paragraph 13, held as under:— “13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad vs. Custodian General, Evacuee Property [Nasir Ahmad vs. Custodian General, Evacuee Property, (1980) 3 SCC 1 ] has held that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard”. On this account, the order dated 23.10.2018 of the District Magistrate, Saharsa is bad in the eyes of law. 16. There is another aspect of the matter which is whether the District Magistrate has got power to cancel the agreement. Admittedly, the contract was awarded by the Purchase Committee headed by the District Magistrate, but nothing has been brought on record to show that the District Magistrate was himself competent to cancel the contract. During the course of hearing, certain documents were produced from the official file which shows the another document dated 23.10.2018, having same contents as Annexure-9, was having signatures of the District Magistrate, Deputy Development Commissioner and the District Planning Officer, Saharsa. During the course of hearing, certain documents were produced from the official file which shows the another document dated 23.10.2018, having same contents as Annexure-9, was having signatures of the District Magistrate, Deputy Development Commissioner and the District Planning Officer, Saharsa. By filing his personal affidavit, the District Magistrate, Saharsa has tried to pass the preparation of two documents bearing different signatures in the official working process submitting that letters or orders are prepared in two heads namely, office copy and final copy. Office copy is signed by all the concerned officials and assistants whereas the final copy is signed by the concerned final authority and in this manner discrepancy has been tried to be explained. If this reasoning of the District Magistrate is to be accepted, there must be mentioning of this fact that the office copy was signed by the three officials whereas the final copy was signed by the final authority, in the present case, the District Magistrate. No such explanation is forthcoming. However, this discrepancy is not of our concern for the present since we are dealing with the issue whether the District Magistrate has competence to cancel the contract. No doubt the clause of the contract provides for settlement of dispute by the District Magistrate as the Chairman of the Purchase Committee, but the present case is not for the resolution of any dispute by the settlement authority, rather it is cancellation of contract and if the contract was awarded by the district purchase committee, it ought to be cancelled by the same committee in absence of any specific provision to this effect. But in no way, the District Magistrate was empowered to cancel the contract. On both the counts, the order dated 23.10.2018 is not sustainable. 17. However, as already discussed, at this point of time the scheme under which the petitioner was awarded the contract has been closed and the official respondents are not in a position to revive the contract entered into by the parties. So, no useful purpose would be served even if the order dated 23.10.2018 is set aside. At the same time, the respondent no.4 by arbitrary and illegal act forced the petitioner in such a hapless condition that he has no option but to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance on two occasions. So, no useful purpose would be served even if the order dated 23.10.2018 is set aside. At the same time, the respondent no.4 by arbitrary and illegal act forced the petitioner in such a hapless condition that he has no option but to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance on two occasions. Under these circumstances, it is proper and justified to impose cost upon the official respondents which is quantified at Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) to be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, failing which further cost quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) will be paid by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner. Imposition of cost is warranted for the reasons that the petitioner was successful bidders, agreement was executed, the petitioner had invested on materials and he was compelled to file two writ petitions. 18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.