CWP No. 13999 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13999 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.8.2010 M/s Gazi Builders ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 25.6.2010 (Annexure P-18) passed by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, P.W.D., B&R, Ludhiana, cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the tender for construction of music academy was allotted to it on 6.8.2009. The petitioner commenced the work and as per letter of respondent No.3, work of the value Rs.2,64,375/- had already been completed. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed stating that as per decision of the Government, the work now stood transferred to Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA). According to the petitioner, the CWP No. 13999 of 2010 -2- decision in cancelling the contract is arbitrary. When the petitioner has taken step to execute the work, the same could not be cancelled without any fault on its part. 3. Notice was issued. Reply has been filed stating that cancellation of work was on account of decision to get the work done through GLADA. Though the work has been awarded for higher amount, the reason for awarding work at higher amount was that the work itself was increased. The petitioner also had an opportunity to participate in the fresh tender process but it did not do. Preliminary objection has been taken as to availability of alternative remedy of arbitration. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. In view of the availability of alternative remedy, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion about the validity or otherwise the decision taken by the respondents which matter can be gone into in appropriate proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to its alternative remedy. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 26, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE