IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12778 of 2009 RAM PRAVESH RAI ESTATE PVT. LTD. through its Managing Director Ram Pravesh Rai,m son of Sri Kamla Roy, Resident of House No. 44, Patliputra Colony, Patna Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Superintending Engineering, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Hajipur ----------- 02/ 08.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner- Private Limited Company is a works contractor. It was entrusted with the road laying work under agreement dated 26.11.2008 with stipulation that the work be completed within nine months from the date of issue of the work order. The work order was issued on 2.6.2008. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that work could not be completed within the time granted under the agreement on account of intervening rainy season. In this connection, it is further submitted that petitioner had requested the authorities to issue the work order as also to sign the agreement after rains are over, but the authorities issued work order on 2.6.2008 and the work could not be completed within nine months from the date of the work order. 4. Appreciating the delay in executing the road laying contract, the Executive Engineer, after notice to the petitioner, rescinded the agreement under order, bearing No. 01 dated 26.5.2009, Annexure-7. Petitioner has assailed the said 2 order before this Court on the ground that this Court should appreciate the causes of delay in executing the works contract and should set aside the order dated 26.5.2009, Annexure-7. In this connection, it is further submitted that till date the works contract, which was earlier allotted to the petitioner has not been retendered and appreciating such fact, this Court should set aside the order rescinding the contract and grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to complete the works contract earlier entrusted to him. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that petitioner should represent before the Engineer-in- Chief of the Department against the order dated 26.5.2009, Annexure-7, who should consider the causes for the delay in executing the works contract entrusted to the petitioner and if he is satisfied that delay was beyond the control of the petitioner as also the fact that the work has not been retendered, he shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law considering the fact that petitioner has already completed about 3 Kilometres of the B.M. & S.D.B.C. work, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)