Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22736 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S S.K. Construction Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Kant,Vatsala Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Mrs. Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri F.A.Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no. 1 and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3/Gorakhpur Industrial Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order impugned dated 20.6.2025 passed by the third respondent, whereby the contract of the petitioner-firm had been cancelled and further the petitioner-firm was directed to be blacklisted for a period of two years. 3. The instant matter was taken up by this Court yesterday i.e. 17.7.2025 and on the said date, Mrs. Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as on date, 80% of the work had already been done by the petitioner-firm in terms of the contract. As per Article 43 of the General Condition of Contract, it is mandatory upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to give a notice wherein 30 days time would be provided to the contractor before terminating or suspending the contract provided. She submitted that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 failed to invoke said provision as the petitioner firm was not served with any notice. She further submitted that in the instant matter, the time was extended up to 30th June, 2025 and prior to it, the order impugned had been passed on 20th June, 2025, whereby, not only the contract of the petitioner-firm had been cancelled but also the respondent had proceeded to blacklist the petitioner, which is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. Lastly on the instructions, she had submitted that in terms of the work order, the petitioner-firm is in a position to complete remaining work within 45 days time. 4. In the aforementioned circumstances, we had adjourned the matter on 17.7.2025 and asked Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent to seek instructions. 5. Today, when the matter is taken up Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent on the instructions, submitted that time to time various indulgences were accorded to the petitioner-firm to complete the work but the petitioner-firm utterly failed to adhere the time schedule as per work order. Even on the basis of evaluation of work done by the petitioner-firm, time to time, the requisite amount had also been released by the authority, as such, the authority had no other option except to cancel the contract and blacklist the firm. As there is an urgency, the respondent-authority had also proceeded to invite fresh tender/bid for completing the remaining work. 6. Considering the factual situation and the undertaking so furnished by the petitioner-firm through its counsel, we accord one more indulgence to the petitioner-firm to complete the remaining work. 7. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 20.6.2025 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 45 days in terms of the undertaking so furnished before us. The petitioner-firm is to complete the remaining work within 45 days, failing which, the interim order shall automatically stand vacated. 8. On the joint request of the parties, put up this matter in the first week of September, 2025 as fresh. Order Date :- 18.7.2025/A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad