The court emphasized the importance of the arbitration clause in the agreement and declined to entertain the writ petition involving disputed questions of fact.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent concerned to pay the amount of bills since 2.4.2010 to 18.11.2010 during which period the petitioner claims to have done the allotted work as per the agreement and further for a direction to the respondent concerned to allow the petitioner to do the remaining allotted work as per the agreement and if the respondents authorities are not willing to take work from the petitioner then total bill amount regarding work done up till 18.11.2010 alongwith security amount of Rs. 1,83,000.00 be refunded to the petitioner and also for quashing letter dated 3.12.2010 issued from the office of Chief Medical Superintendent, East Central Railway, Sonepur informing the petitioner about cancellation of the agreement as well as forfeiture of the security amount and for other ancillary reliefs.

2. The points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the action of the respondents in not paying the amount due to the petitioner against the work already done as per the agreement was not legal and proper and that imposition of additional conditions at the time of making payment contrary to the agreement was also illegal and was merely with a view to cut down the amount in pretext of new mode of grading of work and furthermore the cancellation of the agreement in arbitrary manner only due to protest made by the petitioner against illegal acts of the respondents was a glaring example of colourful exercise of power by respondents authorities.

3. The admitted facts of the case are that for complete sanitation work of Muzaffarpur Railway Station by mechanical as well as manual methods open tender was invited vide Tender Notice No. 2/ 2009 dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure-A), in response of which several offers came, out of whom the offer of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 36,41,216.00 for two years (total 730 days) made on 30.12.2009 was the lowest and hence it was accepted by the authorities vide letter dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure-B) and accordingly the petitioner deposited P.G. amount before the respondents on 12.3.2010, whereafter work order was issued by the respondents in her favour vide letter dated 16.3.2010 (Annexure-1) and the petitioner commenced her work from 2.4.2010 (Annexure-C). Finally an agreement was executed on 14.5.2010 (Annexure-2) between the petitioner and the respondents authorities with respect to the said work order, which was sent by the authorities with letter dated 3.6.2010.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she filed applications dated 21.7.2010, 11.8.2010 and 21.8.2010 (Annexure-3 series) to the respondents for payment against the work done as the petitioner had spent huge amount for labourers and machines due to essentiality of the work as per the norms of agreement, but no heed was paid and after hectic persuasion the respondents became ready to make payment against the work already done by the petitioner imposing additional condition that petitioners bill will be paid on the basis of established criteria of grading which was neither mentioned in the tender notice nor was included in the agreement and was only meant to compel the petitioner which is apparent from letter of the respondent dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure-4) and in pursuance of that letter the petitioner appeared in the office of Chief Medical Superintendent, Sonepur for finalization of the bill and she raised objection regarding gradation and insisted that she was not liable to be affected by such criteria of grading and thereafter also she filed several representations before the authorities on 30.9.2010, 8.10.2010, 12.10.201.0 (Annexure-5).

5. It is further claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that discarding the claim of the petitioner and her repeated representation, the respondents issued letter dated 20.10.2010 and 25.10.2010 (Annexure-6 series) mentioning therein that on the basis of talk with the petitioner a decision has been take