IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11233 of 2008 - --- M/S Uttar Bihar Construction Company Spots Club Road, Chhatauni, Motihari,East Champaran through its partner Rabindra Pratap Singh, son of late Jung Bahadur Singh, resident of village- Rajapur Mathia, Police Station- Kotwa in the district of East Champaran. Versus 1. The Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Works) East Central Railway, Danapur, Mahendru. 3. The Construction Administration Officer (South)East Central Railway, Mahendru. 4. The Chief Engineer,Construction (South)East Central Railway, Danapur. 5. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction, East Central Railway, Danapur. 6. The Senior Divisional Engineer (Lines),East Central Railway,Danapur. 7. Allied Infrastructures 2 Project Pvt Ltd. ,P-16, Bentic Street AC Mansion,3rd Floor ,Kolkata. ----------- 4 16.10.2008 Petitioner had come to this Court against cancellation of his contract and re-tendering the same at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Petitioner’s further grievance was that the work has already been done but he has not been paid as no measurement was done. Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Railway submits that noticing that the work being done by the petitioner was slow, railway having right to rescind the contract, rescinded the same. The said decision should not be interfered in the facts and circumstances of the case . On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submits that on their own admission railway had extended the time for completion of the work with reference to Clause 17(A)(iii) of the General Terms and Conditions of contract. It could thus not say that the petitioner had delayed - 2 - in completion of work. In my view, these questions as to what occasioned the delay and how far petitioner or the railway is responsible, are facts in this case, which need ascertainment and in my view, the proper jurisdiction would be Arbitration in terms of the General Terms and Conditions itself. This Court is ill equipped to determine with certainty those facts. So far as measurement for work done of the contract, Mr. Agrawal made a statement with reference to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Railway that in presence of the petitioner measurement of leveling work has been completed and other measurements are being done in presence of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is expected that no sooner measurements are completed , petitioner would be paid for whatever is due ,preferably within four weeks of the measurement being completed.. Railway already having re-tendered and fresh contractor already began the work, petitioner cannot be granted any relief by this Court except that the petitioner would be at liberty to move for arbitration with regard to all its disputes including the validity of the termination order and re-tender at the risk and cost of the petitioner and once such a proceeding is put in motion, the parties would be bound by the decision therein. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn. Singh (Navaniti Pd. Singh) - 3 -