HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15601 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a an Agency specialized in executing works pertaining to the fields of Lubrication, Pipelines, Hydraulic, Electrical, Mechanical and Civil. A tender notice was issued by the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, the 1st respondent herein, inviting tenders for the work of “Revisioning and Reclamation of Operational Wear Parts in Wide Rod Mill”, for a period of one year from 01.09.2008 to 31.08.2009. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder for that and the contract was awarded. Some disputes have arisen at the commencement of the contract itself. Through proceedings, dated 30.07.2009, the respondents terminated the contract awarded to the petitioner by invoking Clause 14.1 of the General Clauses and Clause 12 of Special Conditions of Contract. The petitioner filed W.P.No.23538 of 2009 challenging the same. The writ petition was allowed on 03.11.2009 and the respondents were directed to pass fresh orders, taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, they passed an order dated 28.04.2010, debarring the petitioner from entering into any future business with them, for a period of two years. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. The order of termination of the contract was challenged in a different writ petition and the same was set aside. The impugned proceedings are issued for a different purpose. Clause 12 of the Special Conditions of Contract directs that, in case there is any delay or default on the part of a contractor in the execution of the work, he is liable to be debarred for a period of two years. The record discloses that there was some delay in commencing the work, and ultimately, the contract was to be terminated. It is not known as to whether the balance of work was entrusted to any other agency. Be that as it may, the delay in commencement of the work, irrespective of the reasons, would certainly provide a ground for debarring the contractor from undertaking any future business, may be for a limited period. In the instant case, the respondents have debarred the petitioner for the full length of two years, which is the maximum period under the clause. If one takes into account the fact that the delay was caused much on account of the insistence by the authorities of the respondents that an employee, by name A.Simhachalam, must be taken into pertitioner’s work and that several complications have arisen on account of it; the debarring of the petitioner two years, appears to be disproportionate. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if it is restricted to one year. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, restricting the operation of the impugned order for a period of one year. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:22.03.2011 GJ