Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 900
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Power And Instrumentation (Gujarat) Limited - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No.4103 of 2022
Decided On : 27-04-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. B. K. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Gogoi, SC, PHE
Writ courts will not interfere in the termination of a contract involving disputed factual contentions requiring evidence. The appropriate remedy for such breaches lies in a civil court, where the party may seek damages, and the time spent in bona fide writ proceedings shall be excluded from limitation calculations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution - Article 226 - Contractual obligations - Termination of contracts - Writ jurisdiction - Disputed questions of fact - Where the termination of a contract is based on factual disputes regarding the inability to perform the work due to site conditions, such matters involve evidentiary investigation which cannot be adjudicated in summary writ proceedings. (Para 7)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Exclusion of time - Where a party has been diligently and bonafidely pursuing a remedy in a wrong forum, the period during which such proceedings were pending should be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing subsequent suits or legal proceedings. (Paras 8 and 9(iv))
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was issued various work orders for the implementation of water supply schemes. Following the failure to complete the works within the stipulated time, the authorities terminated the contracts. The petitioner challenged the termination in the writ court, contending that severe geological obstacles at the project sites prevented timely completion and requesting a time extension that was denied by the authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the termination of contracts involves complex factual determinations that require the production of evidence, which is beyond the scope of Article 226. It further observed that since the contracts are determinable, the appropriate remedy lies before a civil court seeking damages for breach of contract. However, acknowledging the petitioner's bona fide pursuit of the writ remedy, the court directed that the time spent in the current proceedings be excluded from the period of limitation for any future civil litigation.
Issues: The main issues were whether a writ court should interfere with the termination of a contract based on alleged factual impediments and whether a petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the exclusion of time (under the Limitation Act) for the duration of pending writ proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving disputed questions of fact relating to the breach or termination of a contract. Such issues must be adjudicated by a competent civil court where evidence can be recorded. Provided the petitioner acted in good faith, the period spent pursuing the incorrect forum must be excluded in calculating the limitation period for pursuing the correct civil remedy.
Result: Petition disposed of; the court declined to interfere with the contract termination, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court for damages, and directed the exclusion of time spent in the current writ proceedings from the limitation period.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of factual and procedural background of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's argument regarding technical failure and request for time extension. (Para 6) |
| 3. writ jurisdiction is unavailable for disputed factual claims requiring evidence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of writ petition with liberty to pursue civil litigation. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. B. K. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner was issued 4 (four) work orders the details of which have been given at paragraph No.4 of the writ petition. The said details are reproduced herein under:
“(i) The Respondent No.2 issued the Work Order no. EE/PHE/TEZ-1/TC-277/2021-22/2399 dated 03.11.2021 for implementation of various pipe water supply scheme in New Phulbari under JJM under Tezpur Division No.1, Tezpur for the year 2021-22. The approx value of the work is Rs.2,00,13,501/-.
(ii) The Respondent No.2 issued the Work Order no. EE/PHE/TEZ-1/TC-277/2021-22/2400 dated 03.11.2021 for implementation of various pipe water supply scheme in Ouhala Gaon PWSS under JJM under Tezpur Division No.1, Tezpur for the year 2021-22. The approx value of the work is Rs.81,16,700/-
(iii) The Respondent No.2 issued the Work Order no. EE/PHE/TEZ-1/TC-277/2021-22/2401 dated 03.11.2021 for implementation of various pipe water supply scheme in New Namgaon T.E. PWSS under JJM under Tezpur Division No.1, Tezpur for the year 2021-22. The approx value of the work is Rs.94,62,950/-.
(iv) The Respondent No.2 issued the Work Order no. EE/PHE/TEZ- 1/TC-277/2021-22/2409 dated 05.11.2021 for implementation of various pipe water supply scheme in Kachu Bil SVS and Rowmari Gaon PWSS under JJM under Tezpur Division No.1, Tezpur for the year 2021-22. The approx value of the work is Rs.1,42,41,450/- and Rs.1,04,77,550/- respectively, totaling Rs.2,47,19,000/-.”
3. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that for no fault of the Petitioner, the Petitioner could not complete the works and the Petitioner requested the Respondent Authorities for allowing the Petitioner further time for completion of the works which was not accepted by the Respondent Authorities rather the Respondent Authorities terminated the four contracts and it is under such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities to cancel the four contracts vide the communication dated 08.06.2022.
4. A perusal of the records reveal that vide an order dated 28.06.2022, this Court while issuing the notice kept the maintainability of the writ petition open. The Respondents however have not filed the affidavit-in-opposition in spite of due opportunities being provided.
5. This Court heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. The termination of the contracts in question by the Respondents vide the communication dated 08.06.2022 is on the ground that the Petitioner could not complete the works. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that, on account of heavy layers of boulders at the work site, the Petitioner could not carry out deep boring beyond 180 feet. In spite of that, the Petitioner sought for extension so that the Petitioner could carry out the works by using other machineries. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that such opportunities were not given to the Petitioner.
7. It is the opinion of this Court that the statements which have been made by the Petitioner are required to be proved by way of evidence and in that regard, it is the further opinion of this Court that such factual adjudication which has to be based upon evidence cannot be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. Apart from that, it is also noticed that the termination was given effect to on 08.06.2022 and almost 4 (four) years have passed b
