-1 of 2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4772 of 2024 M/s Sri Sai Krishna Constructions, a registered partnership firm having its office at 18-03-228, Srinivasa Village, Flat No. 201, Yousufguda, Hyderabad – 50033 consisting of partners namely 1. G. Prathima, 2. G. Yashwanth Reddy and 3. G. Sai Mounica Reddy, duly represented through its authorized signatory Gunapati Murali Krishna Reddy, aged about 63 years, Son of Gunapati Adisesha Reddy, Resident of Plot No.164, Road No. 13 A, Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet, P.O. & P.S.-Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500033. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Engineer in Chief – 1, Water Resource Department, Nepal House Ground Floor, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Jal Bhawan, 6th Floor, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The Joint Secretary-cum-Internal Financial Advisor, Water Resource Department, Nepal House Ground Floor, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 5. The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Irrigation Division, Bund, P.O. & P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. L. Ravichander, Sr. Advocate (through V.C.) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Mayur, Advocate Ms. D. Neeharika Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G. Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, A.C. to A.G. --------- 06/Dated: 13.01.2025 M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral) 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing impugned letter contained in Memo No. 466 dt. 03.08.2024 whereby, the 5th respondent had rescinded an agreement No. 01 SBD/2023-24 for the work of “lining and renovation of structures under Surangi Reservoir Scheme” on the basis of minutes of meeting dt. 22.07.2024, where a decision appears to have been taken by the Departmental Tender Committee to rescind the said agreement. 2. Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that this decision contained in Memo dt. 03.08.2024 was not preceded by any show cause -2 of 2- notice and no explanation of the petitioner was called for before taking the said decision. He also further contended that the basis for the said decision is incorrect; and in fact, it is on account of certain lapses on the part of the respondents that the delay in completion of the work in question occurred, and not because of any fault on the part of the petitioner. 3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the impugned letter dt. 03.08.2024 was issued without prior show cause notice and inviting any explanation to the petitioner. 4. In the light of the stand of the respondents, without entering into the merits of the controversy, the impugned letter dt. 03.08.2024 issued by the 5th respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration. 5. The 5th respondent shall issue a show cause notice within one week from today to the petitioner mentioning the reasons on the basis of which the action for rescinding the agreement is proposed; the 5th respondent shall also supply the material on the basis of which the show cause notice is being issued so that the petitioner may rebut the same; within two weeks from receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner shall supply an explanation to 5th respondent with accompanying materials. The 5th respondent shall then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate it to the petitioner. A personal hearing shall also be afforded by the respondents to the petitioner. 6. Pending reconsideration of the matter, the respondent shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) APK/VK