WP(C) 4127/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. D.C. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. H.M. Phukan, lear ned State Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 6. The petitioner, by the present petition has challenged the order dated 26th July , 2011 passed by the Managing Director, Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Bo ard (in short, the Board ) canceling the work order dated 20th November, 2008 i ssued in his favour for construction of Aerator, Raw Water Channel, Flush Mixtur e and Clarifloculator for Sibsagar Town Water Supply Scheme as well as blacklist ing the petitioner firm thereby debarring the petitioner from getting any furthe r order from the respondent Board. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there being no fault o n the part of the petitioner in not completing the work within the time allotted and also there being provision for extension of the period within which the wor k has to be completed, the respondent authorities ought not to have cancelled th e work order issued in favour of the petitioner, which resulted in heavy financi al loss to the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has b een blacklisted even without issuing any notice asking him to show cause and as such, the composite order dated 26th July, 2011 is liable to be quashed. Mr. Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 6 placing relia nce on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed has submitted tha t despite the various opportunities given and also issuance of various notices a sking the petitioner to complete the work, as the petitioner has failed to compl ete the said work, the order of cancellation of the work order had to be issued keeping in view the nature of work allotted to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, though the work was to be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the month of November, 2008 and the petitioner till the month of Ju ly, 2011 could not complete the same. Relating to the order of blacklisting the petitioner thereby prohibiting him to participate in the future contract work, it has been submitted by Mr. Keyal, lea rned counsel that the said order has been passed keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner as well as his performance. Mr. Keyal, however, has fairly submit ted that before passing the order of blacklisting, no notice was issued to the p etitioner. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that there is a disputed question o f fact involved in the present proceeding. While the petitioner was claiming tha t there was no fault on his part for non completion of the work within the stipu lated period of time, the respondent authority, on the other hand, has contended that despite the time schedule fixed for completion of the work and various war nings and notices issued, the petitioner could not complete the work even for al most 3 (three) years. The petitioner claims that because of cancellation of suc h work order, he has suffered damages. Such disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in the present proceeding. The extent of damages, if any, caused to t he petitioner also cannot be ascertained in the writ proceeding as it requires e xamination of evidence to be adduced by the parties. That being the position, the challenge made to the cancellation of the work orde r cannot be entertained. However, it would be open to the petitioner to challeng e the same in an appropriate civil proceeding in the appropriate forum having ju risdiction over the matter, if so advised. Relating to the blacklisting of the petitioner, it is an admitted position of fa ct that no show cause notice was issued prior to passing of the said order of bl acklisting dated 26th July, 2011. The petitioner firm cannot be blacklisted wit hout issuing any notice thereby denying him the opportunity to demonstrate that he cannot, for the reasons to be cited, be blacklisted, which opportunity has no t been given to the petitioner. That being the position, the order dated 26th July, 2011 passed by the Managing Director of the respondent Board relating to the blacklisting of the petitioner is set aside. It is, however, open to the respondent Board to initiate the said proceeding against the petitioner, afresh if so advised. Mr. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at this stage, has subm itted that the earnest money as well as the security money deposited have been f orfeited by the respondent Board, which may directed to be refunded to the petit ioner. Since the said amount has been forfeited because of the cancellation of the work , it is open to the respondent Board to consider release of the same, if any rep resentation is made by the petitioner to that effect. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated above. No c osts.