Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 857
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Girindra Kumar Bhuyan Son Of Late Ramani Kumar Bhuyan - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No.719 of 2024
Decided On : 27-04-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. P. Sarmah, Sr. Advocate Ms. M. Borah, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A. K. Dutta, CGC Mr. B. Gogoi, SC, PWD Mr. N. Borah, Advocate
Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating complex factual disputes arising from contract terminations. Where contractual works have been completed by third parties, the moving party should approach a civil court, with the time spent in litigation eligible for exclusion from limitation calculations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Breach of contract - Termination of tender - Scope of judicial review - Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for determining factual disputes concerning the alleged breach of contract and the validity of a termination order. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Limitation - Exclusion of time - When a litigant diligently pursues a remedy in a writ petition, the period spent in such proceedings should be excluded while computing the limitation period for initiating proceedings before a competent civil court. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the termination of a contract for the construction of infrastructure, the issuance of a notice to resume works, and a subsequent tender notice for the remaining work. During the pendency of these petitions, the subject infrastructure work was re-tendered and successfully completed by other agencies.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitions were infructuous as the project in question had already been completed. It further determined that the legality of contract termination and associated claims of breach involve复杂的 factual disputes that cannot be adjudicated within the scope of writ jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can adjudicate the legitimacy of contract termination and associated factual disputes, and whether relief is maintainable after the underlying work has been completed through a new tender process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that it will not use its extraordinary jurisdiction to resolve factual disputes regarding contractual performance. Where the contract has already been executed via a new agency, the petitioner must seek remedies in a civil forum, with the period of time expended in the writ proceedings to be excluded from the statutory limitation period.
Result: Petitions dismissed; liberty granted to the contractor to approach the competent civil court, with a direction to exclude the duration of the writ proceedings from the computation of the limitation period.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context and factual history of multiple filed writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. judicial restraint regarding contractual disputes and reliance on civil litigation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. dismissal of writ petitions with preservation of civil remedy rights. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. R. P. Sarmah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. A. K. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Union of India; Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the PWD and Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.10 in WP(C) No.4781/2022 and WP(C) No.4846/2022.
2. The Petitioner has filed this present batch of four writ petitions. In WP(C) No.4781/2022, the writ Petitioner has challenged the termination order issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tezpur, Sootea and Rangapara Territorial Road Division, Tezpur thereby terminating the contract issued in favour of the Petitioner for construction of the road from “MRL06-Amloga Molangaon Dolongbasti via Cotton Mill including Cross Drainage Work and Routine Maintenance for five years in Sonitpur District under PMGSY-III, 2020-21, Batch 1, Package No.AS-22-679” and further seeking a direction that the Respondent Authorities should grant an extension to the Petitioner for a period of nine months.
3. The writ petition upon being filed, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had issued notice, but the interim order which was sought for was not granted.
4. The second writ petition which was filed by the Petitioner is WP(C) No.4846/2022 whereby the Petitioner assailed the impugned final Notice dated 13.07.2022 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tezpur, Sootea and Rangapara Territorial Road Division and asking the Petitioner to start the said work within five days from the date of issue of the letter or else the work would be withdrawn from the Petitioner for re-allotment to other agency at the Petitioner's risk and cost. The termination of the Petitioner's work vide the termination order dated 19.07.2022, in the opinion of this Court has rendered WP(C) No.4846/2022 infructuous.
5. The Petitioner thereupon filed the third writ petition being WP(C) No.695/2023 assailing the Tender Notice dated 20.01.2023 and the E-Procurement Notice dated 21.01.2023 issued by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Sonitpur and Biswanath for the construction of the roads and CD works under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana, PMGSY-III for 2020-21 Batch-1 for one package, i.e. the balance work in the district of Sonitpur with an estimated cost of Rs.253.05 lakhs including routine maintenance for five years from the approved and eligible contractor. The said writ petition upon being filed, this Court had issued notice, but there was no interim order passed.
6. Be that as it may, there was an observation that any decision so taken shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
7. The writ petition being WP(C) No.719/2024 was filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned Notice to proceed with the construction of the work pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender which was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No.695/2023. It is relevant to take note that the construction work which was allotted to the Respondent No.8 has already been completed in the meantime.
8. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the interference in exercise of powers of judicial review in respect to the subject matter in WP(C) No.695/2023 and WP(C) No.719/2024 does not arise.
9. Be that as it may, as regards the termination of the contract of the Petitioner which is the subject matter in WP(C) No.4781/2022, it is the opinion of this Court that as the work in question has been re-tendered and completed, no direction can be passed in the instant proceedings save and except that the Petitioner be given an opportunity to avail remed
