ORDER
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for a direction on the respondents to release the earnest/security deposit made by him in connection with Package No. JH-1401 under the Prime Minister Rural Road Construction Policy, regarding construction of road from Ajmar to Kui/via/Pokhari/Dumari.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner after allotment of the work was proceeding for executing the same, but the extremist organisation stopped the work at the instance of Nuxal outfit. The petitioner informed the same to the executive engineer by letter dated 22nd February, 2003, expressing the difficulty in view of regular threat and disruption of the work at the hands of Nuxalite/anti social elements, but nothing was done. The petitioner, thereafter, demanded security money/earnest money, as he was prevented to complete the work by Nuxalite/anti social elements, but instead of releasing the earnest money to the petitioner, the respondents rescinded the contract by the impugned order and forfeited the amount.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner is not at fault and the work allotted to him could not be completed due to threat and disruption of work by the Nuxal outfit and that cannot be held liable or guilty for not completing the work. The respondents cannot rescind the contract on that ground in confiscating the security deposit/earnest money. The petitioner to that effect filed representation before the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Works Division, Latehar, stating the circumstance, which was also well known to the said respondent, but his representation has not been considered and no order has been passed. Ultimately, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and took resort of this Court.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating, inter alia that the petitioner has not completed the work allotted to him and as such, In accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, he is not entitled to get the refund of the security deposit/earnest money, as claimed by him. It has been further stated that the petitioner has already done the work worth Rs. 108.86 lacs out of Rs. 145.98 lacs but earlier he never complained about the Nuxal problem. He has also never asked for any police help and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get the refund of the earnest amount, as claimed by him.
5. The petitioner is guilty of violating the terms of the agreement and the order denying refund of the security deposit/earnest money is not in any way arbitrary or illegal and the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record.
7. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision for arbitration, at present, and the earlier provision for settlement of dispute through arbitration has been deleted. The respondents have not accepted the petitioner’s contention that the petitioner could not complete the work due to the serious Nuxal problem in the area. The said controversy has to be, thus, settled by some other forum after hearing the parties and considering the evidences and available materials.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the departmental authorities are expert in the matter and filing suit for the said controversy will be a lengthy process, and it will be inconvenient for both the parties. It is better that some departmental authority, above the Executive Engineer, hears and decides the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner has already approached the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, respondent No. 3 who is competent authority, to pass appropriate order on the petitioners’ representation.
9. In view of the said submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, respondent No. 3. If such representation is filed the said respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, and if so required after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation.