5. After a threadbare discussion, the Council arrived at a considered decision to terminate the contract granted to the appellant. He drew the Court's attention to the notices issued to the appellant more particularly the notice dated 06.12.2019 wherein, it is clearly indicated that if the work under the contract was not expedited, the department would be left with no other option but to initiate action as per the tender agreement. He contended that despite all possible efforts and warnings given and notices issued to the appellant for completing the work was not completed, the employer being the Council, took a considered decision in the meeting dated 03.05.2019 instructing the Executive Engineer to cancel and issue a fresh tender notice for the project. He submitted that despite this direction, the Executive Engineer gave further windows to the appellant vide notices dated 04.02.2020 and 08.06.2020 imploring it to complete the work but when the desired result was not forthcoming, the jurisdiction under Clause 59(e) of the work agreement was exercised and the Executive Engineer acting on behalf of the Council communicated to the appellant, the decision to terminate the contract. He submitted that the appellant having committed a fundamental breach of contract cannot be allowed to raise the flimsy pleas of non-service of notice and the termination of contract by an incompetent authority while bypassing the remedy provided under the contract. He urged that Clause 24 of the work agreement provides a remedy of review against the impugned action to the appellant who failed to avail the same and hence, the writ petition was not maintainable. On these grounds, he implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the order passed by the learned Single Bench.
