IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6592 of 2008 M/S R.S. PANDEY & COMPANY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 2.9.2008 The petitioner has undertaken to execute road strengthening and widening work for the State. Due to various reasons, which are not necessary to be gone into, the work was not being carried out to the satisfaction of the State authority. This ended in termination of the agreement by the State authority. Petitioner was asked to co-operate in matters of measurement of work done for the purposes of payment consequent to the termination. By the termination order, the earnest money and the security money were ordered to be forfeited and certain penalty levied. This was challenged before this Court. While the writ application was pending, it is not in dispute that almost entire work has been done by a third party. Thus, in my view, the order of cancellation cannot now be interfered with for the purpose of granting continuance of the contract. There are very many disputed aspects. Petitioner claimed payment for work done. State disputes liability to pay any amount. Petitioner states that the 2 order of termination was perverse and not based on correct fact. State supports the order. In my view, the dispute, as being raised, is not one, which can be or which should be resolved in the summary proceeding before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is more so because now the State legislature has enacted the Bihar Public Works Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 (Bihar Act 21 of 2008) which was published on 2nd of May, 2008. This Act, in my view, provides a complete machinery for resolution of such disputes. Petitioner would be well advised to raise all grievances which are available to it on facts and in law before such a Tribunal as constituted under the said Act. Mr. Binod Kanth, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the remedy as provided under the Act is futile inasmuch as neither rules have been framed nor the Tribunal has constituted. It is a matter of regret that though the Act was published on 2nd May, 2008, yet rules have not been framed or published nor the tribunal has constituted. On one hand, 3 State raised objection as to the maintainability of the Writ application on the ground remedy available under the Act but at the same time State take no effective steps to see that the Act is implemented, that is contradiction in term. However, State would realize its responsibility and predicament of the contractors. State would take all expeditious steps to see that the rules finally published and tribunal constituted immediately, failing which this Court may have to reconsider the decisions of referring the disputes to such a non constituted Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid enactment, in my view, proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the tribunal as and when constituted, which hopefully should be constituted as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. As non constituting the tribunal within that period will cause immense difficulty to the citizen, who would be left without expeditious remedy in the matter. This disposes of the writ petition. Singh/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh , J.)