The court will decline to exercise writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes involving complex factual issues susceptible to evidence, preferring to relegate parties to the contractually agreed-upon dispute resolution mechanism while excluding the pendency period of the writ petition from the limitation computation.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. R. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. S. Baruah, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. I have also heard Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.7.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs which are reproduced herein under:

“(i) To set aside and quash the show cause notice no. 23(106)/EE/PD/2020/329 dated 12.05.2020.

(ii) To set aside and quash the order of termination of work order vide No. 23(106)/EE/PD/2020/713 dated 28.08.2020 issued by the Respondent No.3 and upon cause or causes being shown and after hearing both the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute.

(iii) To direct the Respondents to refund the amount of performance guarantee which was furnished to them in the form of BG Bond No.3213ILG001618 dated 17.05.2018 for Rs.22,93,058.00 issued by Punjab National Bank, Mahabir Market Branch, S.R.C.B. road, Guwahati-781001.

(iv) To direct the Respondents to pay the Bank charges for extra 16 months paid by the petitioners to his Banker for keeping the BG Bond No. 3213ILG001618 dated 17.05.2018 for Rs.22,93,058.00 alive till the determination of the contract.”

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was awarded rd a contract for construction of Internal Roads at 33 Bn. ITBP Karchia Sonapur, Guwahati. However, on account of not granting of the permissions by the Forest Department of the Government of Assam as well as the ban imposed by the District Administration, Kamrup (M), the Petitioner could not complete the work and resultantly after issuance of Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner’s contract was terminated and the Bank Guarantee invoked. The Petitioner therefore has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. It is the opinion of this Court that the issue involved in the instant proceedings relates to as to whether there was any breach of contract by the Petitioner or the Petitioner was restricted by conditions beyond its control to perform the terms of the contract. These aspects cannot be decided in a writ proceeding taking into account that evidence has to be led as to the existence of such circumstances which did not permit the Petitioner to carry out the performance of the work.

5. This Court during the course of hearing, enquired with Mr. R. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as to whether there is any dispute redressal forum taking into account that such disputed questions of facts has to be dealt with in a forum wherein evidence can be led.

6. Mr. R. Hussain, the learned counsel referred to Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, 2014 of the CPWD which permits that such disputes to be decided by a particular forum in the manner stipulated therein. Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, 2014 is reproduced herein under.

“CLAUSE 25

Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, drawings and instructions here-in before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders for these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work o