ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the termination of the contract issued in favour of petitioner vide letter Ref: CRP/CM/E112100140/1020 dated 26.02.2024. 2. The brief facts of the case are : petitioner pursuant to the tender issued by the respondent-Company (i.e. Singareni Collieries Company Limited), participated in the said tender and being successful in technical and financial bid, tender was knocked down in favour of petitioner being the lowest bidder (L1). Thereafter, Agreement was entered between the parties dated 28.08.2021, as per the terms and conditions of which and also the Agreement, petitioner was obligated to conduct the work for drilling, excavation, loading, transportation, dumping, spreading and levelling, etcetera of 681.538 lbcm of in-situ ob (which includes 616.638 lbcm hard ob, 2.375 lbcm top soil, 9.226 lbcm sub soil and 53.299 lbcm coal) and re-handling of 8.75 lbcm loose top soil with conventional equipment and additional works viz. 17,765 rmt drilling (i.e. 12,765 rmt in ob & 5,000 rmt in coal) at JVR OC-II mine, kgm area for the period of 48 months. Thereafter, petitioner has been performing his duties and has undertaken the work entrusted to him. 2.1. It is the case of petitioner that as per the terms and conditions of the contract and also the tender issued by the respondent-Company, authorities were obligated to provide adequate lighting facilities so as to enable petitioner to conduct his operations 24 x 7, however, due to lack of necessary lighting which was to be provided by the respondent authorities, petitioner could not conduct the operations for 24 hours and had to restrict his operations to the day light only. Though petitioner has brought the issue to the notice of the authorities several times, the latter did not take any remedial steps on the said complaint. 2.2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has made several requests to the authorities to provide necessary infrastructure i.e. lighting but the authorities did not take any steps. He further submits that the Director of Mines Safety had inspected the area open cast mine which are entrusted to petitioner and found that lighting was not adequate, therefore, petitioner was directed not to carry on the work beyond the day light hours. He further submits that the Director of Mines Safety had inspected the area open cast mine which are entrusted to petitioner and found that lighting was not adequate, therefore, petitioner was directed not to carry on the work beyond the day light hours. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Directors of Mines Safety directing petitioner to work during day time only. The authorities instead of taking remedial steps and providing adequate lighting, has issued the impugned order of termination dated 26.02.2024 whereby, petitioner was not only stopped from conducting further extension and transportation works but he was also debarred from participating in future tenders for a period of two years and penalties were imposed on him. 2.3. Learned counsel submits that due to lapses committed by the respondent-Company, his client cannot be blamed for non-excavation and transportation of sub-soil and coal as he could not work for 24 hours in a day. The authorities while issuing the tender, calculated the production on the premises that petitioner will operate for 24 hours a day but due to the inadequate lighting, they had to restrict the operations to day light only. Learned counsel further submits that the order impugned is without any application of mind and also the authorities without taking into consideration the earlier communications made by petitioner informing them about the inadequate lighting, had passed the impugned order of termination and also other consequential penalties. The lapses committed by respondent authorities are duly demonstrated by letter No./H.R.1/D.M.A/Violation Letter/2024 of the Director of Mines Safety dated 30.01.2024 and also the fact that respondents have issued a fresh tender for the balance work and in the said tender, the authorities have rectified their mistakes and arranged the extra lighting required for operation of open cast mine for 24 x 7. Had petitioner been given the same opportunity, they could have successfully completed the work within the given period, but however, the authorities, for reasons best known to them, did not rectify their lapses and straightaway issued the order of termination. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed to allow the present Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order of termination. 3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Company Sri Sriharsha Reddy has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the Writ Petition and the prayer sought for. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed to allow the present Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order of termination. 3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Company Sri Sriharsha Reddy has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the Writ Petition and the prayer sought for. Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner, in spite of being granted sufficient time, did not complete the work entrusted to them and lagged behind in production. Petitioner therefore, was put on prior notice before the impugned order of termination was passed and the fact that petitioner has not completed the entrusted work within the specified time schedules is borne out from the record. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities duly taking into account the various lapses made by petitioner and also taking into consideration the fact that petitioner did not operate the mine 24 x 7, passed the impugned order of termination, therefore, the same does not require any interference of this Court. It is submitted that the authorities have provided adequate lighting and petitioner instead of completing the work within the specified time schedule, is trying to shift the blame on the respondent-Company. On the earlier occasion also, petitioner approached this Court by way of various writ petitions which were disposed of and the authorities have complied with the directions given by this Court. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that running of the open cast mines is a time- bound one and production cannot be stalled/ stopped by petitioner as it will adversely affect the financial well being of the Company and also will have a larger impact on the coal reserves maintained by the Company. Therefore, it is prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 4. A perusal of the pleadings as well as the documents filed by petitioner as well as the respondent make it abundantly clear that the Company had issued NIT and, thereafter, petitioner participated in the same. Petitioner being successful in both the technical and financial bid was short- listed and being the lowest bidder (L1), the contract was knocked in their favour. Thereafter, Agreement was entered between the parties and petitioner commenced the work. The impugned order of termination was passed on 26.02.2024 on the ground that petitioner is not keeping up with the production and is lagging behind in production of the coal and also in other works which have been entrusted to them. Thereafter, Agreement was entered between the parties and petitioner commenced the work. The impugned order of termination was passed on 26.02.2024 on the ground that petitioner is not keeping up with the production and is lagging behind in production of the coal and also in other works which have been entrusted to them. The entire case of petitioner is that they could not complete the work entrusted as per the tender due to inadequate lighting provided by the respondent-Company, therefore, they could not operate the same 24 x 7. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents, it is stated as under: “15. In reply to para 13, it is submitted that during the inspection of Sri Kamalesh Kumar Verma. Director Mines Safety, DGMS. Hyd region No.01 on 17.01.2024, observed the contravention of insufficient lighting at off loading patch. It is submitted as per Clause no. 1.10.r (iv) of the purchase order, the petitioner shall deploy 11 no's of diesel generator sets for lighting in dump areas and excavation areas, However, since the lighting other than dump yards and excavation areas were inadequate as per the DGMS inspection on 17.01.2024, the number of Diesel Generator sets has been increased from 11 number to 18 number in the subsequent tender after termination of the contract of the petitioner. 17. In reply to para 15, it is submitted that as per Clause no. 1.11 (c) of purchase order, SCCL provided necessary lighting arrangements at the site other than excavation area and dump yards as such the allegations of the petitioner that the respondent company failed to provide lights as per the agreement are not true & correct, hence denied. 18. In reply to para 17, it is submitted that a relay order was placed on M/s PC Patel Infra Pvt. Ltd., and the firm started production on 01.08.2024 and the provision of lighting is also within scope of the firm, however since DGMS has taken objection with regard to inadequate lighting, SCCL has increased the number of Diesel Generators from 11 number to 18 number of diesel generators.” 6. Further, it is to be noted that inspection of the site by the agent of the Director of Mines Safety made on 17.01.2024 reveals that the said Authority has debarred petitioner from conducting operations 24 x 7, on the ground that adequate lighting is not provided. Further, it is to be noted that inspection of the site by the agent of the Director of Mines Safety made on 17.01.2024 reveals that the said Authority has debarred petitioner from conducting operations 24 x 7, on the ground that adequate lighting is not provided. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Director of Mines Safety dated 30.01.2024 is extracted herein below: "4. Regulation 178 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 2017 read with GS.R. 981(E) dated 04.10.2018: To carry out workings beyond day light hours. sufficient lighting arrangements were not provided at offloading patch of M/s GKR Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. (Site-1). No workings shall be carried out beyond day light hours in offloading patch of M/s GKR infracon India Pvt. Ltd. (Site-1) without providing adequate lighting.” 7. A conjoint reading of the paras from the counter- affidavit filed by respondents and also the order passed by the Director of Mines Safety reveals that adequate lighting was not provided to petitioner at the site. This fact can be culled out from the admission made by respondents themselves in their counter that they increased the lighting from 11 to 18 when they issued a fresh tender for the balance work. Further, the order passed by the Director of Mines Safety also reveals that as on the date of inspection i.e. 17.01.2024, there was no adequate light made available to petitioner. The contention of respondents that necessary infrastructure was provided but petitioner did not complete the work as per the specified work schedule is without any legal basis and contrary to the record. It is also not denied by the authorities that petitioner has not brought to their notice about adequate lighting on the previous occasions and admittedly, no steps have been taken by the authorities for providing adequate lighting at the site till the inspection was made on 17.01.2024 by the agent of Director of Mines Safety and also till re-tender was issued by respondents. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is only to be blamed for not completing the work as per the schedule given by the respondent-Company. The Company is also equally to be blamed for the lapses and petitioner cannot be singled out on that. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is only to be blamed for not completing the work as per the schedule given by the respondent-Company. The Company is also equally to be blamed for the lapses and petitioner cannot be singled out on that. The authorities ought to have provided necessary lighting as soon as the same was brought to their notice by petitioner but for reasons best known to them, they kept quiet. It is only after the inspection report/ order passed by the Director of Mines Safety on 30.01.2024, the authorities have rectified their mistakes before issuing a fresh tender for the balance work. 8. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the opinion that the order of termination dated 26.02.2024 is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power and the same has to be declared as illegal, bad and contrary to the well-settled principles of law and has to be necessarily set aside and the same is accordingly, set aside. 9. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed and impugned order dated 26.02.2024 is set aside. Consequently, respondent-Company is directed to pre-close the contract and if any amounts are due to petitioner, they are legally-obligated to clear the same. Petitioner is directed to give a suitable representation to the Authorities enclosing the bills that are due to him and any other material in support of the same. The Authorities, after due verification of the bills submitted by the petitioner, are directed to make necessary payments due to petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of representation made by petitioner. No costs. 10. Consequently all the miscellaneous applications if any are closed.