ORDER : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. Heard Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned termination order dated 19.06.2021 (Annexure P-7) for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct that the order of termination of contract issued by the respondents on 19.06.2021 (Annexure P-7) is quashed. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to comply the requirements of the contract so that a concluded contract comes into existence and the petitioner be able to commence the work as per the provisions of the NIT, as the petitioner is still interested to commence the work. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a joint venture company which has been incorporated in order to respond to the notice inviting tender issued by the SECL on 28.06.2020 for "Hiring of HEMM for excavating all kinds of strata / overburden / insitu loading into Tippers, Transportation and unloading of excavated materials & silt, dumping, dozing, scrapping / removal of all bands, preparation / maintenance of haul road, water sprinkling and spreading of material at the site shown in the plan and as per directives of the Management / Engineer in charge of Amlai OC Expansion, Sohagpur Area for Total Quantity: 3,72,98,290 Cum (23,26,609.00Cum-Soft Soil + 3,43,64,912.00Cum-Hard Strata + 6,06,769.00 Cum-Re-handling), Minimum QPD: 25547 Cum, Period: 1460 days". This e-tender notice has been identified by bearing NIT No.SECL/BSP/CMC/e-Tender/407 dated 28.06.2020. Pursuant to the notice inviting tender, the petitioner constituted a joint venture partnership. It is submitted that this joint venture agreement was inconformity with the requirement which is made in the tender notice. 4. This e-tender notice has been identified by bearing NIT No.SECL/BSP/CMC/e-Tender/407 dated 28.06.2020. Pursuant to the notice inviting tender, the petitioner constituted a joint venture partnership. It is submitted that this joint venture agreement was inconformity with the requirement which is made in the tender notice. 4. The petitioner along with other competitors submitted their bids and the tender evaluation committee found that the bid submitted by the petitioner is lowest (L-1) and therefore on 27.10.2020, the respondents issued letter of intent. It is respectfully submitted that the awarded value of the work was Rs.239,38,18,394.10 including GST @ 18%. Duration for completion of contract work is 1460 days and at the time of submission of bid, the bidder is required to deposit Rs.50 lakhs towards earnest money. The petitioner deposited Rs.50 lakhs towards earnest money. According to the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender, the successful bidder is required to submit performance guarantee. It is further submitted that even in the letter of intent, it is mentioned that the work shall commence only after submission of performance security and additional performance security, if any. 5. The notice inviting tender is divided in several parts and in one of the parts under the caption of "Instructions to Bidders", there is a provision for performance security/ security deposit at serial No./clause 24. The NIT have several parts and one of the parts is general terms and conditions. Some of the definitions are given in clause 1 under the caption of "Definitions". "Contract" is defined in sub-clause (viii) of clause 1 which says that the 'contract' shall mean the notice inviting Bid, the Bid as accepted by the company and the formal agreement executed between the company and the contractor together with the documents referred to therein including work order, general terms and conditions, special terms and conditions, Additional terms and conditions etc., if any, schedule of quantities with rates and amounts, Schedule of work. In Clause 2.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contract, it is specially mentioned that after acceptance of Bid and on execution of contract / issue of work order to proceed with the work, as the case may be, the contractor shall be furnished, free of charge, two copies of contract documents (certified copies), excepting those drawings to be supplied during the progress of work. The contractor shall keep copy of these documents on the site / place of work in proper manner so that these are available for inspection at all reasonable times by the Engineer-in-charge, his representatives or any other officials authorized by the company for the purpose. It is respectfully submitted that till formal agreement is not executed between the parties, contract cannot be said to be a concluded contract. 6. In the present case, after issuance of the letter of intent, further stages of execution of contract could not proceed with on account of worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 situation. Neither the performance guarantee was deposited nor any agreement between the parties was executed and therefore it is a case where the concluded contract has not come into existence. It is further submitted that after issuance of the letter of intent on 27.10.2020, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 05.12.2020 purported to be under Clause 6.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of the NIT ignoring the fact that Clause 6.1 will apply only when a concluded contract comes into existence. Since no concluded contract came into existence, there is no question of applicability of Clause 6.1 of the NIT. Even otherwise, if it is assumed that Clause 6.1 is applicable in the present case, it is respectfully submitted that clause 6.1 comes into play only when the default of the contractor is without any reasonable cause or valid reason. The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 22.12.2020. In this reply, a specific stand was taken by the petitioner that on account of COVID-19, it is not possible to submit performance guarantee as well as execution of agreement and also made request for extension of time up to 20th January, 2021 and also assured that sources will be mobilized at the site by 1st of February, 2021 and also made a request that the show cause notice which was served may be withdrawn and consider the request for extension of time. It is respectfully submitted that the request which was made in this reply was never responded by respondent No.1 and the petitioner was waiting the extension of time. It is respectfully submitted that the request which was made in this reply was never responded by respondent No.1 and the petitioner was waiting the extension of time. When letter dated 22.12.2020 was not responded, then another letter dated 20.01.2021 has been submitted by the petitioner requesting for extension of time for submission of performance bank guarantee for LOI No.SECL/BSP/SMS/495 dated 27.10.2020, and this letter was also not replied. The contents of these two letters which were submitted by the petitioner on 22.12.2020 and 20.01.2021 were not considered by the respondents on 19th of June, 2021 and the respondents have passed the order of cancellation of contract and also recovery of penalties and debarment of contract under Clauses 6.1 and 9.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contract. It is respectfully submitted that there is reference of letter dated 20.01.2021 in which assurance was given by the petitioner for deposit of performance guarantee and mobilisation of equipments. Ignoring the fact that without accepting the offers which were made in the letter dated 20.01.2021, how it is possible to submit the performance security deposit and no reply has been given by the respondents so far as the letters dated 22.12.2020 and 20.01.2021. It is submitted that exercise of power by respondent No.1 in cancellation of contract, recovery of penalty and debarment under Clauses 6.1 and 9.2 of the Contract is arbitrary, illegal unjustified and without jurisdiction on the ground that since no agreement has been entered between the parties, no concluded contract come into existence and therefore the terms and conditions which are incorporated in Clauses 6.1 and 9.2 are not applicable in the present case. It is further submitted that concluded contract comes into existence only when performance guarantee was deposited and formal agreement was entered into between the parties which was lacking in the present case. In the show cause notice, the respondents have proposed for banning of business of the petitioner for 12 months, whereas in the final order of cancellation it is for 24 months. This deviation between the show cause notice and the final order with respect to the duration of period of banning of business shows that the respondents have not applied their mind. 7. This deviation between the show cause notice and the final order with respect to the duration of period of banning of business shows that the respondents have not applied their mind. 7. 20% of the value of incomplete work which has been imposed upon the petitioner is contrary to law, it cannot be imposed when no agreement has been entered into between the parties as well as when no work order was issued. Since no work order has been issued in favour of the petitioner, there is no progress of work allotted to the petitioner. The consequences of termination of contract is provided in Clause 9.2 of the Terms and Conditions of the Contract. The show cause notice dated 05.12.2020 which is already filed along with this writ petition have no reference that the respondents will invoke Clause 9.2(c)(i)(ii) of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contract. However, they have exercised their right which is in fact not available to them without providing notice to the petitioner contrary to the principles of natural justice without serving show cause notice that this clause is also to be invoked. 8. The circumstances or the factual matrix in which Clause 6.1 of the General Terms and conditions of the contract will apply are entirely different for the applicability of Clause 9.2. The consequences of default in commencing the execution of work within the period stipulated is given in Clause 9.1 and therefore other provisions of the NIT will not apply. It is well settled principle of law that when a provision to meet with the specific situation is provided in the deed that specific provision will apply, and specific provision for default in commencing the execution of work is provided in clause 6.1 and therefore other clauses will not apply. It is also respectfully submitted that clause 6.1 does not speak about the forfeiture of 20% of the value of incomplete work. Clause 6.1 provides that in case the contractor itself defaults in commencing the execution of work, a notice would be served upon him to commence the work failing which to forfeit the earnest money or performance security deposit or additional performance security deposit, if any, deposited by him. Clause 6.1 provides that in case the contractor itself defaults in commencing the execution of work, a notice would be served upon him to commence the work failing which to forfeit the earnest money or performance security deposit or additional performance security deposit, if any, deposited by him. The second consequence is that the company shall ban such defaulting contractor from participating in future tenders in concerned Subsidiary / CIL for a period of minimum one year from the date of issuance of such letter, without providing for maximum period of debarment. 9. Section 56 of the Contract Act incorporates in itself the doctrine of frustration. Apart from it, the NIT in clause 6.1 of the general terms and conditions also incorporates the doctrine of frustration. The contract becomes frustrated on account of impossibility. Clause 6.1 begins with the phraseology, "if the contractor, without reasonable cause or valid reason, commits default in commencing the execution of the work within the aforesaid date" and therefore when the petitioner has raised a specific ground that due to the pandemic situation of COVID-19 across the nation they have failed to deposit performance guarantee within the time stipulated, the respondents without refusing the request of extension of time, straightway cancelled / terminated the contract. This action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust and unfair. 10. The lock-down was prevailing in the State of Punjab and the National Capital Region (NCR) / National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi from where manpower has to be procured and therefore it is impossible for the manpower to reach to Sohagpur. It is also mentioned that Delhi is under complete lock-down as well as Sohagpur is also under complete lock-down and therefore any attempt to commence the work violates the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. It is submitted that in one of the correspondences, the respondents have informed that the mining activities are exempted from lock-down ignoring the fact that it is not a regular continuing mining activity, but in fact, it is removal of overburden whereby the highly skilled manpower who were able to operate the machineries is required and this kind of skilled and semi-skilled manpower is not available locally in adequate number in the State of Chhattisgarh and have to be taken from the States of Haryana, Punjab or Delhi. 11. 11. The petitioner has submitted two letters making request for extension of time. The respondents have failed to respond to those two letters and therefore an uncertainty come into existence whether the respondents are extending time or not extending the time. It is worthy to submit that first notice was issued by the respondents in the month of December, 2020 and termination order was issued on 19.06.2021. Between the show cause notice dated 05.12.2020 and the final termination order which is dated 19.06.2021, there is a gap of more than seven months. This gap of seven months cannot be said to be a reasonable gap. If the offer of the petitioner was accepted for extension of time, there is possibility that work might have been commenced, but keeping silent for seven months itself shows that time was not the essence of contract nor the action of termination was reasonable. In view of the above circumstances, termination of contract, forfeiture of EMD deposited by the petitioner, debarring of contract for 24 months and to impose penalty is unjust, unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. 12. Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is unjust, unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. He further submits that there was no concluded contract and therefore, imposition of penalty of recovery of 20% of the value of incomplete work which comes to Rs.40,57,31,931/- and GST pf Rs.7,30,31,748/- is beyond the power of the respondents and against the provisions of Clause 6.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of the NIT. Since the petitioner has not deposited performance guarantee and the respondents have not issued work order, there is no concluded contract come into existence and as such, the termination of contract which is not in existence, is illegal. He also submits that due to lock-down and COVID-19 situation, there was reasonable reason for not commencing the work in terms of Clause 6.1 of the NIT as well as Section 56 of the Contract Act and Clause 6.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of the NIT authorizes barring of only one year and the show cause notice dated 05.12.2020 also speaks barring for 12 months, whereas in the termination order, business with the petitioner has been banned for 24 months. This deviation is illegal and liable to be set aside. This deviation is illegal and liable to be set aside. He contended that the entire order of termination is suffered by the principles of natural justice and the time was not the essence of contract, there is delay of seven months from the date of final notice to the termination of contract. Thus, the punishment imposed is contrary to Section 73 of the Contract Act. He next contended that there is deviation in the final show cause notice and final termination order with respect to the duration for which the banning is imposed. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others v. S. Kumar’s Associates AKM (JV) reported in (2021) 9 SCC 166 . 13. On the other hand, Ms. Ashtha Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate for the respondents and submits that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of availability of alternative remedy. Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contract provides that in the event any dispute arises out of the contract between the parties, then the parties shall resolve the dispute through arbitration and avoid litigation. She further submits that Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 specifically provides that in case an arbitration clause is provided in the contract, then the jurisdiction of the courts to settle the dispute is ousted. The petitioner was awarded the work vide LoI dated 27.10.2020 by the respondent-SECL, but despite repeated requests and reminders dated 29.10.2020, 11.11.2020, 21.11.2020 and 27.11.2020 the petitioner as per LOI failed to commence the work within the stipulated time and also failed to submit Performance Security Deposit of Rs.24922730/- within 21 days from LOI as per Clause 24.2 of the NIT and thereby failed to sign an agreement within 28 days of issuance of LOI as per 23.3 of ITB. She also submits that in view of above default and violation of terms and conditions of the NIT and general terms and conditions of the Contract, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.11.2020 for personal hearing to explain the default and violations, but the petitioner did not attend the same. Therefore, the respondent was constrained to issue a show cause notice in terms of Clause 6.1 of the GTC. Therefore, the respondent was constrained to issue a show cause notice in terms of Clause 6.1 of the GTC. In response to the above notice, the petitioner vide letter dated 22.12.2020 promised to commence the work by 20th January, 2021 and sought 30 days time for depositing PSD, but neither the work was commenced nor PSD was deposited. Again a time extension was sought vide letter dated 5.2.2021 for the same, but failed to honour the terms and conditions of NIT/ITB. She contended that in view of above default and violation of terms and conditions of the NIT and general terms and conditions of the Contract, the impugned order dated 19.06.2021 was issued for termination of work, EMD forfeiture, banning and penalty which is well reasoned and speaking order issued after due application of mind in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract which does not warrant interference by this Court and due to non-performance of the work by the petitioner, the respondent SECL has adversely affected the coal production from Amlai OCM and the respondent has suffered huge financial loss and the respondent after assessment of the losses has imposed the penalty and debarring as per terms and conditions of the NIT, ITB and GTC. She further contended that clause 23 of the NIT specifically states that the award of work would constitute the formation of contract. Further, Annexure “B” of the e-NIT-Terms and Conditions is a document where the bidder accepts the bid condition during the submission of bid online, therefore, the petitioner while participating in tender itself has accepted all the conditions of the documents. Therefore, the petitioner is misinterpreting the provisions of the GTC to contend that there was no work order issued which is totally incorrect because as per clause 23 of the NIT the contract is deemed to be concluded after award of work and it does not say after issuance of work order. In the present case, the work was awarded by LOI dated 27.10.2020 and according to which, the petitioner was supposed to commence the work and therefore, the contract was concluded between the parties. She also contended that for Sohagpur area, the contract has been awarded to the Chhenai Radha Engineering Works Private Limited. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. She also contended that for Sohagpur area, the contract has been awarded to the Chhenai Radha Engineering Works Private Limited. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. She relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. And Another reported in (2006) 1 SCC 751 , Unissi (India) Private Limited v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research reported in (2009) 1 SCC 107 , Govind Rubber Limited v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Private Limited reported in (2015) 13 SCC 477 and PSA Mumbai Investments PTE. Limited v. Board of Trustees of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and Another reported in (2018) 10 SCC 525 . 14. In the matter of Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has held that it is no doubt true that a letter of intent may be construed as a letter of acceptance if such intention is evident from its terms. It is not uncommon in contracts involving detailed procedure, in order to save time, to issue a letter of intent communicating the acceptance of the offer and asking the contractor to start the work with a stipulation that the detailed contract would be drawn up later. If such a letter is issued to the contractor, though it may be termed as a letter of intent, it may amount to acceptance of the offer resulting in a concluded contract between the parties. 15. In the matter of Unissi (India) Private Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that in this case admittedly the documents which are on record apparently show supply of the material by the appellant to PGI and acceptance thereof by PGI in pursuance of the tender enquiry by them wherein tender of the appellant containing the arbitration clause was admittedly accepted by PGI. Accordingly, we hold that arbitration agreement did exist and, therefore, dispute between the parties would be referred to an arbitrator for decision. 16. In the matter of Govind Rubber Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that there may not be any dispute with regard to the settled proposition of law that an agreement even if not signed by the parties can be spelt out from correspondence exchanged between the parties. 16. In the matter of Govind Rubber Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that there may not be any dispute with regard to the settled proposition of law that an agreement even if not signed by the parties can be spelt out from correspondence exchanged between the parties. However, it is the duty of the court to construe correspondence with a view to arrive at the conclusion whether there was any meeting of mind between the parties which could create a binding contract between them. It is necessary for the court to find out from the correspondence as to whether the parties were ad idem to the terms of contract. 17. In the matter of PSA Mumbai Investments PTE. Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that on a conjoint reading of the aforesaid clauses, a few things become clear- (i) first and foremost a disclaimer at the forefront of the RFP makes it clear that there is only a bid process that is going on between the parties and that there is no concluded contract between the same, (ii) it is equally clear that such bid process would subsume a letter of award to be issued by Respondent 1 with two further steps under the schedule to be gone into before the draft concession agreement finally becomes an agreement between Respondent 1 and the special purpose vehicle that is constituted by the consortium for this purpose. (iii) that throughout the stage of the bid process, the forum for dispute resolution is exclusively with the courts at Mumbai, and (iv) that right uptil the stage of the entering into the concession agreement, the bid process may be annulled without giving any reason whatsoever by Respondent 1. 18. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusing the documents and material available on record, it transpires that the petitioner was awarded the work vide LOI dated 27.10.2020 by the respondent-SECL and clause 23 of the NIT specifically states that the award of work would constitute the formation of contract. Further, Annexure “B” of the e-NIT-Terms and Conditions is a document where the bidder accepts the bid condition during the submission of bid online, therefore, the petitioner while participating in tender itself has accepted all the conditions of the documents. Further, Annexure “B” of the e-NIT-Terms and Conditions is a document where the bidder accepts the bid condition during the submission of bid online, therefore, the petitioner while participating in tender itself has accepted all the conditions of the documents. Therefore, the petitioner is misinterpreting the provisions of the GTC to contend that there was no work order issued which is totally incorrect because as per clause 23 of the NIT the contract is deemed to be concluded after award of work and it does not say after issuance of work order. In the present case, the work was awarded by LOI dated 27.10.2020 and according to which, the petitioner was supposed to commence the work and therefore, the contract was concluded between the parties, but despite repeated requests and reminders dated 29.10.2020, 11.11.2020, 21.11.2020 and 27.11.2020 the petitioner as per LOI failed to commence the work within the stipulated time and also failed to submit Performance Security Deposit of Rs.24922730/- within 21 days from LOI as per Clause 24.2 of the NIT and thereby failed to sign an agreement within 28 days of issuance of LOI as per Clause 23.3 of the ITB. In view of default and violation of terms and conditions of the NIT and General Terms and Conditions of the Contract, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.11.2020 for personal hearing to explain the default and violations, but the petitioner did not attend the same. Therefore, the respondent was constrained to issue a show cause notice in terms of Clause 6.1 of the GTC. In response to the above notice, the petitioner vide letter dated 22.12.2020 promised to commence the work by 20th January, 2021 and sought 30 days time for depositing PSD, but neither the work was commenced nor PSD was deposited. Again a time extension was sought vide letter dated 5.2.2021 for the same, but failed to honour the terms and conditions of NIT/ITB and therefore, the respondent-SECL after due application of mind has issued impugned order dated 19.06.2021 for termination of work, EMD forfeiture, banning and penalty in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract which does not warrant interference by this Court. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel for the respondent-SECL, for Sohagpur area the work contract has been awarded to Chhenai Radha Engineering Works Private Limited. 19. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel for the respondent-SECL, for Sohagpur area the work contract has been awarded to Chhenai Radha Engineering Works Private Limited. 19. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate i.e. S. Kumar’s Associates AKM (JV) (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 20. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order, the pleadings made by both the parties and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any force in this writ petition. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).