IMPORTANT POINT
The court highlighted the importance of the arbitration clause in the contract agreement and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the maintainability of writ petitions in contractual matters.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. P. Mahanta. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC.

2. The claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to non-payment of contractual dues.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was allotted works under “Improvement of BBDC Road from Ch-19700m to Ch-20700.00m including construction of 1000mm dia NP3 HP Culvert No.21/1, 1200mm dia (5 Row) 21/2 under NLCPR for the year 2008-2009.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of the “Demand Proposal of Grant Share of NLCPR Scheme” made by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Barpathar Roads Division Silonijan (respondent no.6) on 24.03.2023, the balance amount payable to the petitioner for completion of the said contract work is 14,75,040/-. He submits that despite the Completion Certificate No.1149 dated 24.09.2014 having been issued by the respondent no.6, the petitioner has not been paid the balance contractual dues till date.

5. Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC), on the other hand submits that though the work undertaken by the petitioner was under a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, the petitioner has not impleaded the Union of India as a party respondent in the writ petition. He submits that various notices were sent to the petitioner to complete his contract work. However, the petitioner did not complete the contract work. The contract work of the petitioner from Ch-19700m to Ch-20700.00m was amongst the 53 work groups from the one project work for improvement of the BBDC Road from CH 0.00 to 30.20km under the NLCPR Scheme. The work for the entire Ch. No. 0.00km to 30.20 Km was foreclosed on 06.10.2020 and work was allotted to another contractor, i.e., M/s M.P. Agarwalla, A.T. Road, Bokakhat, Assam, vide letter no.CE/DEV/TB/383/2020-21/9 dated 26.02.2021.

6. The counsel for the KAAC submits that the award of the construction work of BBDC Road CH.19700m to CH.20700 to the petitioner, vide Work Order No.ACEH/CH/NLCPR/48/09-10/4 dated 26.03.2010 for Rs.71,46,049/-, was not completed by the petitioner within the stipulated time period. He submits that as the uncompleted work of the petitioner had been completed by another contractor in the year 2021, the running bills submitted by the petitioner for the work executed by him are now more than 13 years old and as such, it would not be impossible to verify the work done by the petitioner after so many years have gone by.

7. Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel for the KAAC submits that as there are disputed questions of fact, the petitioner has an alternative remedy, as disputes between the parties can be resolved through Arbitration, in terms of the contract agreement made between the parties. The respondents counsel also submits that there is a delay in filing the writ petition and as such, the writ petition should be dismissed for delay and laches.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. As can be seen from the stand taken by the parties, there are disputed questions of fact, as to whether the work was completed by the petitioner and whether verification of the work done by the petitioner can be done at this stage.

10. With regard to the question as to whether the petitioner had completed the contract work, the Completion Certificate No.1149 dated 24.09.2014 issued by the respondent no.6 shows that the work was started on 08.04.2010 and it was completed on 20.08.2014, though the scheduled completion date was 30.09.2011. The Completion Certificate also shows that the original tender value was Rs.71,46,049/-and the value of the completed work was Rs.71,35,424/-. Though the State respondent have taken the plea that the petitioner did not complete his contract work, there is no document showing that the contract work given to the petitioner had been terminated by the respondents. Further, if the work was not completed, there was no question