DBSAW158/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.158/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15387/2009 Govind Singh Contractor Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 2. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.160/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15427/2009 Govind Singh Contractor Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14551/2009 Govind Singh Contractor Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14613/2009 Govind Singh Contractor Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 24.09.2010 Present Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq None present #### By the Court:- These four matters have been filed at the instance of same person, namely, Govind Singh, who is a Contractor and who was awarded four contracts containing Package No.RJ-13BN-UG-14A, 14B & 15A & 15B for construction of roads in Dholpur region. Respondents terminated all four contracts by separate orders and therefore said DBSAW158/2010 // 2 // Govind Singh filed four writ petitions. Learned Single Judge, vide its separate but similar judgments dated 09.12.2009, dismissed two Writ Petitions No.15387/2009 and 15427/2009 and aggrieved therewith said Govind Singh preferred two special appeals. When said two special appeals were listed before the Court, remaining two undecided writ petitions No.14551/2009 and 14613/2009 were also ordered to be clubbed with special appeals. Since all the matters arise out of common dispute, the same are considered and decided together. Appellant was granted four contracts for construction of roads in Dholpur region under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana. All four Contracts for construction of roads were terminated by separate orders dated 30.12.2008, 12.08.2009 and 01.09.2009. According to respondents, appellant failed to fulfill terms and conditions of the contracts in that, he was required from time to time to make progress of work but he failed to show any improvement nor show any reason. The work remained substantially incomplete. Clauses 52.1 and 52.2 of General Conditions of Contract provide that stoppage of any work without prior permission of the Engineer In-charge shall amount to breach of contract. In that background, the contracts were DBSAW158/2010 // 3 // terminated. Contention of appellant/petitioner, however, is that he requested competent authority from time to time, to remove various difficulties that were prevalent at the site of work and despite repeated request the hindrances/obstacles in completion of work were not removed and, therefore, it was not possible for him to complete the work. Termination of contracts was illegal and arbitrary. Learned Single Judge dismissed two writ petitions in view Clauses 24.1 and 24.2. Clause 24 is in respect of “Dispute Redressal System”. Clause (1) thereof provides that if any dispute or difference of any kind in connection with or arising out of this Contract or the execution of works or maintenance of the works thereunder, it shall be referred to for settlement to the competent authority, who shall do so within a period of forty-five days after being requested in writing by the Contractor to do so, and convey his decision to the Contractor. Clause (2) thereof provides that either party will have a right of appeal against decision of competent authority to the Standing Empowered Committee. It is settled proposition of law that in contractual disputes where determination of disputed question of fact is involved, this DBSAW158/2010 // 4 // court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would be loath to interfere in the matter, particularly when alternative remedy mechanism is available in the contract itself. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in impugned judgments passed by learned Single Judge and on the same reasoning, we do not find any merit in other two writ petitions which have been ordered to be clubbed with these special appeals. Both special appeals are dismissed. Consequently the writ petitions No.14551/2009 and 14613/2009 are also dismissed for the same reason. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. (Jagdish Bhalla) CJ. //Jaiman//