WP(C) 6777/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. AC Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner as w ell as Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Ms. J. Hazarika, learne d counsel for the respondent corporation. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-H letter dated 1.12.2010 by which the contract relating to Paper Finishing Job in Finishing House earlie r allotted to him was cancelled at his risk and cost. Such a course of action ha s been adopted on the ground that inspite of repeated requests and persuasion th e petitioner did not take any interest to do the finishing job of sufficient qua ntity of cut sheet papers made available to the petitioner since 19.11.2010. As per the notice, there was slowing down of work by the petitioner since 19.11.201 0 and when the corporation’s repeated verbal intimation and follow up action did not yield any result, the petitioner was informed vide corporation’s communicat ion dated 24.11.2010 and 26.11.2010 to immediately carry out finishing of accumu lated cut sheets papers made available to the petitioner. As per the notice, rep eated failure to finish cut sheet papers had seriously affected the delivery com mitment of the corporation. Various grounds have been urged towards assailing the said impug ned letter dated 1.12.2010. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated 22.12.2010, the following interim order was passed. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of j ustice, it is, as an interim measure, hereby directed that, until returnable dat e, the impugned order of termination, dated 01.12.2010, shall stand suspended to the extent that the same permits the respondent No. 2, namely, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., to proceed, at the risk and cost of the petitioner, with the p aper finishing job in Finishing House, which had stood awarded earlier to the pe titioner. On perusal of the aforesaid order, what is seen is that the impu gned order dated 1.12.2010 has been suspended to the extent the same permits the respondent/corporation to proceed at the risk and cost of the petitioner with t he paper finishing job in Finishing House, which was earlier awarded to the peti tioner. Thus, there is no stay as such of the termination of contract but what h as been statyed is further proceeding towards implementation of the job at the r isk and cost of the petitioner. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties ha s drawn my attention to Clause 26 of the Tender Document relating to cancellatio n of contract in full or in part, in terms of which, the corporation reserves th e right to cancel the contract in full or in part with 15 days written notice fo r any of the reasons indicated under the said Clause. It is submitted that the impugned letter dated 1.12.2010 having been issued without issuing the stipulated 15 days written notice, the same is b ad in law. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of without e ntering into the merit of the case of the either parties interfering with Annexu re-H letter dated 1.12.2010. Such interference is only in view of non-compliance of Clause-26.1 of the Tender Document, which provides for 15 days written notic e for cancellation of contract. It is made clear that irrespective of the letter dated 1.12.2010 , the respondent/corporation will be at liberty to proceed with the matter in ac cordance with the Tender Clauses as may be deemed fit and proper. Writ petition stands disposed of.