Disputed questions of fact regarding breach of contract, assessment of liquidated damages, and invocation of bank guarantees cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. Such matters require determination by a competent civil court or arbitral tribunal, as a party cannot be the sole arbiter of its own breach.

JUDGMENT :

Anjan Moni Kalita, J.

Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Nirola, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. P. Pangu, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 5.

2. The instant intra-court appeal has been filed by the Appellants assailing the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 186 (AP) of 2024.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant writ appeal are briefly summarised herein below:

A. The Appellants and one M/s Velecha Engineering Ltd., had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 15.06.2021, for submitting a tender for “Construction and Up- gradation of Tato-Mechuka Road (design chainage from Km 23.800 to Km 33.100 and existing chainage from 24.800 to Km 36.000 (PKG-II) in the State of Arunachal Pradesh” (herein after referred to as ‘Contract Work’). As per the said MoU, the tender is to be submitted in the name of the aforesaid M/s Velecha Engineering Ltd., and if the work is awarded to M/s Velecha Engineering Ltd., the Appellants will be entitled to execute the entire work, on back to back basis. In the tender process, M/s Velecha Engineering Ltd., came out as a successful bidder and Letter of Acceptance was issued in favour of M/s Velecha Engineering Ltd. As per the terms of the MoU, the Appellants submitted the Bank Guarantee, for the successful tenderer, i.e., M/s Velecha Engineering Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 2,41,65,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fourty One Lakhs and Sixty Five Thousands) only for the aforesaid Contract Work. However, the Respondent No. 3, vide it’s letter dated 10.12.2021, approved the Appellants as the sub-contractor only for 49% of the value of the Contract Work, amounting Rs.39,46,95,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Crores Fourty Six Lakhs and Ninety Five Thousands) only under the aforesaid M/s Velecha Engineering Ltd. The Appellants started the execution of the work and completed 49% of the Contract Work. However, further progress could not be made due to bad weather condition, heavy rainfall, various travel restrictions etc. and due to rejection of the prayer of the aforesaid M/s Velecha Engineering Ltd., for extension of time, the Appellants apprehended that the authorities may impose liquidated damages on the aforesaid bills, which were yet to be submitted. The Appellants faced with the aforesaid, submitted a representation to the respondent authorities on 07.12.2023, praying for releasing the Bank Guarantee as well as other reliefs and not to impose liquidated damages on the bills. While the aforementioned representation was pending, the respondent authorities terminated the Contract with the aforesaid M/s Velecha Engineering Ltd., vide it’s letter dated 16.12.2023. In view of the aforesaid termination, the Appellants approached this High Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition for release of their dues and other consequential reliefs.

B. The respondent authorities by filing their Affidavit-in-opposition denied the contentions made by the Appellants in the writ petition. The stand taken by the respondent authorities was that the respondent authorities had given the Contract Work to M/s Velecha Engineering Ltd., on 29.06.2021 and on their request for approval of the Appellants as a sub-contractor, to execute 49% value of the Contract Work, as per Clause 4.2 of EPC contract, the same was approved by the authorities, vide it’s letter dated 10