ORDER : SUNIL BENIWAL, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the fresh NIT dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure-7) to the extent of bids sought qua NIT No.126/2020-21, 123/2020-21 and 127/2020-21 so also the orders dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure-4) whereby three contracts of the petitioner have been rescinded by the respondent- Department and penalty has been imposed on account of non- completion of work allotted to the petitioner in pursuance of NIT No.126/2020-21, 123/2020-21 and 127/2020-21. 2. Facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner was issued work orders vide communications dated 20.04.2021 (Annexure-2) for the following: (i) Work of P/L/J testing and commissioning of Pipe Line, Construction & Commissioning of TW, RCC ESR and CWR, Construction of Pump House & Boundary Wall, Providing and installation of Pump Set, FHTCs etc. with defect liability period (with O&M) of 12 months at Conversion from P&T to piped water supply scheme Bhattapura, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur in pursuance of NIT No.126/2020-21. (ii) Work of P/L/J testing and commissioning of Pipe Line, Construction & Commissioning of TW, RCC ESR and CWR, Construction of Pump House & Boundary Wall, Providing and installation of Pump Set, FHTCs etc. with defect liability period (with O&M) of 12 months at Augmentation of RWSS Sundrawali, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur in pursuance of NIT No.123/2020-21. (iii) Work of P/L/J testing and commissioning of Pipe Line, Construction & Commissioning of TW, RCC ESR and CWR, Construction of Pump House & Boundary Wall, Providing and installation of Pump Set, FHTCs etc. with defect liability period (with O&M) of 12 months at Conversion from P&T to piped water supply scheme Semli, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur in pursuance of NIT No.127/2020-21. 2.1 The deadline to conclude the above-mentioned work was 30.10.2021 however, petitioner on encountering certain hindrances, approached the respondent-Department vide letters dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure-3) requesting it to resolve the same. 2.2 Since the work allotted to the petitioner was not completed within the prescribed time period, the impugned orders dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure-4) were passed terminating the contracts. Further, penalty of Rs.16,63,259.89/-, Rs.21,17,535.02/- and Rs.15,41,427.40/- was imposed due to non-completion of work allotted pursuant to NIT No.126/2020-21, NIT No.123/2020-21 and NIT No.127/2020-21, respectively. 2.3 The petitioner approached the respondent-Department aggrieved of the impugned orders and sought 45 days’ time to complete pending work. Further, penalty of Rs.16,63,259.89/-, Rs.21,17,535.02/- and Rs.15,41,427.40/- was imposed due to non-completion of work allotted pursuant to NIT No.126/2020-21, NIT No.123/2020-21 and NIT No.127/2020-21, respectively. 2.3 The petitioner approached the respondent-Department aggrieved of the impugned orders and sought 45 days’ time to complete pending work. The Department, vide Office orders dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure-5) accepted the report made by petitioner and directed him to complete the pending work within a period of 45 days and the impugned orders were kept in abeyance for 45 days. 2.4 The petitioner could not complete the work in question after the aforesaid grace period and again approached the authorities seeking further extension of time. 2.5 The respondent-Department, while taking note of the fact that petitioner could not complete work even after grace period, issued fresh NIT dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure-7) seeking bids qua NIT No.126/2020-21, NIT No.123/2020-21 and NIT No.127/2020- 21. Petitioner aggrieved of the same so also the termination orders dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure-4) has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: (i) The delay caused in completion of work in question is not attributable to the petitioner as it had approached the respondent- Department for resolving the issues faced while carrying out the work. Although 45 days extension was granted vide orders dated 13.06.2023, however, due to certain circumstances which were beyond the control of the petitioner, the work could not be completed. Specifying such circumstances, it was submitted that funds allocated for the work were not released and permits from requisite departments were not obtained by the respondent- Department. Further, due to local public’s outrage, the work could not be executed. (ii) The funds allocated for the work were not released in favour of the petitioner despite several reminders, hence, it was facing great financial hardship in procuring material and completing the work in question. (iii) The work in question has been completed to a major extent and only 10% of the work is remaining, petitioner requires a period of three months to complete the same. (iv) The petitioner is willing to execute the work in question however, it is the respondent-authorities who are prohibiting the petitioner from proceeding further. (iii) The work in question has been completed to a major extent and only 10% of the work is remaining, petitioner requires a period of three months to complete the same. (iv) The petitioner is willing to execute the work in question however, it is the respondent-authorities who are prohibiting the petitioner from proceeding further. The orders dated 13.06.2023 vide which the petitioner was granted a period of 45 days to complete the work were not extended further, following which the impugned orders dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure-4) again came into operation thereby prohibiting the petitioner from proceeding with the work. (v) The respondent-Department without resolving the issues faced by the petitioner has sought bids vide fresh NIT dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure-7) qua NIT No.126/2020-21, 123/2020- 21 and 127/2020-21 for which work orders were issued to the petitioner and it has completed approximately 90% of the work. 3.1. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner be granted a period of three months to complete the work in question and the impugned orders dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure-4) terminating the contracts and penalizing the petitioner be quashed. Further, the fresh NIT dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure-7) to the extent of NIT No.126/2020-21, 123/2020-21 and 127/2020-21 be also quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents made the following submissions: (i) The requisite permits, as per the conditions of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent-Department, were required to be procured by the petitioner and not the Department therefore, the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the delay in completing the work was due to respondents not acquiring the permits is against the terms of contract. (ii) The funds were released in favour of the petitioner as per the governing provisions of law and terms of contract. (iii) As per the factual report prepared by the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. Div. Nagar, only 60% of work has been completed in pursuance of NIT No.126/2020-21 and 123/2020-21, and 55% in pursuance of NIT No.127/2020-21. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that 90% of the work has been completed is without any basis or proof. (iv) The petitioner despite being given additional period of 45 days did not complete the work in question and has merely transposed the blame on the respondent-Department whereas it is the petitioner who is at fault. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that 90% of the work has been completed is without any basis or proof. (iv) The petitioner despite being given additional period of 45 days did not complete the work in question and has merely transposed the blame on the respondent-Department whereas it is the petitioner who is at fault. (v) The fresh NIT dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure-7) has been issued following due process of law and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to complete the work, hence, the challenge to the said notice is completely unfounded. 4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents, on basis of aforesaid submissions, prayed that the instant petition be dismissed and the Department be permitted to proceed further with the fresh NIT dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure-7). 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the petitioner that some more time may be granted to complete the work as petitioner had completed 90% of the work. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has completed major part of the contract, both the counsels were directed to complete the instructions. The counsel for the petitioner was granted time to complete the instructions as to how many more days are required to complete the work and the counsel for the respondent-department was directed to complete his instructions that as to whether the department intends to grant some reasonable time to complete the work. 6.1 Later, when the matter was again taken up, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted three months’ time to complete the work. 6.2 The aforesaid request made by the counsel for the petitioner was vehemently opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondent-department and submitted that the petitioner has completed only 60% of work pertaining to NIT No.126/2020-21 and 123/2020-21 and 55% work pertaining to NIT No.127/2020- 21. The counsel for the respondent-department has also submitted that the petitioner has no intention to complete the work and he just wants to keep the issue pending. 7. On such submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner either does not intend to complete the work or he is not in a position to complete the work. Indulgence of 45 days was granted by the Department, considering his request, however, he could not complete the work. 7. On such submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner either does not intend to complete the work or he is not in a position to complete the work. Indulgence of 45 days was granted by the Department, considering his request, however, he could not complete the work. During course of arguments also, the counsel for the petitioner was not in position to make definite statement about the time required as he stated that some material is to be procured from some third party and they have sought two months’ time. This indicates that the petitioner is totally dependent upon third party commitment. 7.1 Looking to the nature of work involved, which is laying down of pipe-lines for water supply, the petitioner cannot be allowed any further time. Even in the writ petition, the petitioner is not able to make out any case of granting indulgence or any further extension of time. Even otherwise, in such contractual matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited and the limited interference can only be granted if there is any perversity or any arbitrariness on the part of the department. In the present case, no material is available on record which indicates any fault on the part of the respondent-department. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to grant any indulgence to the petitioner. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.