WP(C) 4166/2007 BEFORE HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Ms P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Y. Do loi, learned counsel representing the respondents. This writ petition has been filed making a grievance against the Annexur e-10a letter dated 16.4.2007 as well as Annexure-12 letter dated 21.6.2007 issue d to the petitioner by the Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, BSNL, NETF. By the first letter, the petitioner was intimated that the revision of rate relati ng to the contract awarded to the petitioner was not permissible. By the second letter, the petitioner was requested to commence the work within 10 days from r eceipt of the letter. It was stated that upon failure to complete the work awar ded to the petitioner, the work order would be cancelled as per the clause in th e tender. It is on record that at the time of filing the writ petition on 13.8.2 007, the contract awarded to the petitioner stood terminated by Annexure-’P3’ le tter dated 8.8.2007 annexed to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was awarded with the contract by Annexure-1 communication dated 7.12.2005. The work was to be completed within 6 weeks. As per the stipu lation made in the work order, the work involved was to be completed successfull y and faithfully as per the specification and tendered contract within schedule d time. There is no dispute that the petitioner could not complete the work wit hin stipulated period. However, it is the case of the petitioner that because o f the apathy shown by the respondents in the matter of execution of the work, he could not execute the work within stipulated period. According to the petitio ner, there was heavy landslide and required infructures were also not provided by the respondents. It is the further stand of the petitioner that the soil con dition was not good. According to the petitioner, his representation for extensi on of time ought to have been considered and the respondents ought to have carri ed out the inspection of the site to take stock of the grievance for which the p etitioner could not execute the work. The respondents in their counter affidavit have denied the contentions r aised by the writ petitioner. According to them, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to execute the work. It has been stated in the affidavit that the p etitioner was reminded number of times to execute the work to avoid the delay, b ut to no effect. The respondents have further pointed out that since the petiti oner accepted the offer towards execution of the work with his eyes wide open, h e cannot resile back from the terms and conditions of contract so as to raise u nnecessary and irrelevant pleas. By Annexure-3 communication dated 21.6.2007 annexed to the affidavit-in- opposition, the petitioner was intimated that on his failure to commence the wor k within 10 days of the issue of the letter, the work order would be cancelled a nd the contract would be terminated as per tender clause 13.15. By the said lett er, requests made to the petitioner by letters dated 6.1.2006, 6.2.2006, 27.6.20 06, 15.9.2006, 11.1.2007 and 3.3.2007 were also referred to. Clause 14 of the terms and conditions of contract relates to recession/t ermination of contract. Clause 14 once provides that if the contractor commits breach of any item of terms and conditions of the contract and if the contractor suspends or abandons the execution of work and the engineer in-charge of the wo rk comes to conclusion that work could not be completed by due date for completi on or the contractor had already failed to complete the work by that date and if the contractor had been given by the officer-in-charge of work a notice in writ ing to rectify/replace any defective work and he/she fails to comply with the re quirement within the specified period, the contract would be rescinded and/or ca ncelled. According to the petitioner, the respondents ought to have carried out j oint inspection towards appreciating the difficulties being faced by the petiti oner. Ms P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that consid ering the defects being faced by the petitioner, the respondents ought to have c onsidered reasonable extension of time towards completion of the contract. Countering this, Mr. Doloi, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that against the stipulated period of 6 weeks from the date of awarding the contract on 7.12.2005 till the date of cancellation of the contract by ord er dated 8.8.2007, the petitioner was allowed another period of 1 year 8 months to complete the work. He submits that although there was no express order of ext ension, but since the contract was not terminated till 8.8.2007, there was deemed extension in favour of the petitioner. However, in s pite of such extension, the petitioner failed to execute the work. Emphasizing the need for early execution of the work, he submits that the failure on the par t of the petitioner cannot make the public to suffer. The petitioner was awarded with the contract by order dated 7.12.2005 wi th the terms and conditions stipulated therein. As per the work order, the peti tioner was to complete the work within 6 weeks with effect from 7.12.2005 which admittedly he failed to do so. In fact, in spite of extending the period up-t o 1 year 8 months, he could not execute the work. As noted above, various notic es were issued to him asking him to commence the work in full speed which the p etitioner failed to do. The grounds on which the petitioner has stopped his wor k, in my considered opinion, cannot be the grounds for delay in execution of th e work. The petitioner at the time of accepting the offer, was aware of the te rms and conditions of the tender notice and he was also aware of the prevalent p osition. With his eyes open, he accepted the offer. One of the conditions of th e contract is the termination of the contract upon failure of the petitioner to execute the work. The respondents have invoked the said provisions and have te rminated the contract. It is not the case of arbitrary exercise of power and/or malafide and colourable exercise of power. Apart from the above, there is also arbitration clause in the agreement, in terms of which either of the parties may refer the dispute, if any, to the arbitrator. For the all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ p etition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.