. V Wm ....................................-...............mvzoo U‘ 'e‘ '5“ 'UWIQ pipeime across Gaurav PaTh beTween ShashTri Chowk ’ro Tehbandha The pehhoner's offer was accepfed wor'k order dafed 23.11.2007 qf An 1exure P-2 was issued and on Thaf da‘re ifself agreemenf betwe fhe parTies was execufed. Work of pipeliné was To be complef d wifhin a period of fourvmonfhs from The da‘re of receipt o The work order. HoWever, fhe agreemen‘l‘ was rescinded y The impugned order daTed 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-16) o The ground Thai The peiiiioner had been negligenT in exeeu ion of imporTanT work. By The impugned order name of Th‘ peTiTioner was included in The blacklisT, securiTy deposiT was’forfeiTed and iT was also decided ThaT any addiTional expenses i compleTing The work lefT over by The peTiTioner shall be recover ble from The peTiTioner. 3. Learned counsel for The TiTioner submiTs ThaT delay occasioned in compleTion of wo k as The clear siTaWa’s noT made available To The peTiTioner. e auThoriTies of respondenT- CorporaTion have admiTTed in T e communicaTion of Annexure P- 7 ThaT progress of work is h pered because of obsTrucTions presenT in ThegTeigfilfl‘egfurT er argued ThaT Clause-3 of The agreemenT clearly envisages Th T The conTracT agreemenT could be rescinded only afTer a p ior noTice of 3O days ’To The e i e h ' \mm(m) ' ‘ r m$ -* H r v mmm 4/ -Wmiiwm~ , $Wm m3=hm x“, served wifh a no‘rice daTed 1 .2008 of Annexur'e P—13 whereby he was called upon To show cause wifhin 24 hrs as To why agreement should nof be res nded, his name be included in the blacklis’r, security deposi‘l’ o #he pefi’rioner' be forfei‘red and addifional expenses incurred in complefing fhe work Through o‘rher agency be recovered f om him, bu‘r The said no’rice was received on 14.10.2008 and on he nex'r day ’rhe same was replied by ‘rhe pe‘ri‘rioner, however, 1’ e agreement was fermina‘red only on 13.10.2008 confrary ’ro ’ agreement The respondents: in their repy have denied the allegations of the petitioner and have state that notice as per Clause—3C of the agreement was issued to he petitioner on 12.9.2008 itself (Annexure R-2), some typogr phical errors present in the said notice were corrected by communication dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure R-3) and only there fter another notice was issued to the petitioner on 1.10.2008. S nce there is a default committed by the petition/er in completio of important and urgent work of construction of Gaurav Path, he respondents exercising their right under the agreement ha e rescinded the contract. There provisions of Clause 3C of ’rhe . r ,. W 200' ‘mm(m) $ mmewm> . %W3n%§t contractor and not before‘that. Though the petitioner was H. .‘L ”I mm..uni.yu.f:.gf I .‘.i....‘....-.‘....:....:.f.:.“!2'00 , ‘ ‘mmmiaaw ...mmm V ... [Hf - mm£tfmm *amauam .r Is arblfr'ahon clause under ‘T 1e agreemenf Le. Clause 29;”wHich provides for' resolufion of d!spufe arising ou’r of The commc‘r agreemenf Through arbitrdfion. The pefi'rioner', wifhou? resor‘ring To The procedure prescribed under fhe agreemenf for resolufion of dispufe, has shrcu'ghT—away approached This CourT for redressal of his griev ces and Therefore, The insTanT peTiTion is noT mainTainabIe. We have heard learned couns l for The parTies. . From perusal of The work ord r of Annexure P-Z and agreemenT of Annexure P-3, we find‘Thv The Time allowed forrcomple’rion of aforesaid work was four m nThsr from The daTe of receipT of work order. Theworkorder w s issued on 23.11.2007 and on The some daTe The parTies enTer d inToagreemenT, Thus, The Time allowed for compleTion of wo k, as per agreemenT, had already expired on The daTe of Termin Tion of conTracT agreement Even oTherwise, The quesTion wheT er Class—3C of The agreemenT was duly complied wiTh or noT or n Tice under The above clause was in facT issued and served upon he peTiTioner by The respondenTs or noT, is a dispuTedq, qyesTio of facT and The same cannoT be gone inTo in a wriT proceeding Keeping in view The Clause—29 of The arbiTraTion agreemenT, we are of The opinion ThaT ‘ . m‘m§fsétm r $Wm 7/{/H appropma‘re forum for resol‘u pefifion, so far as ferminath would be arbifm’rion under Cla f ‘ ion' of The dispute raisea M This m of The com‘racf is concerned, Jse 29 of The agreement. l , L V, I k. mm................,......t..;.....‘..:..-...3"..’L.,:.:,’.L.‘."ei 200 i mm (W)