Civil Writ Petition No.14126 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14126 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.10.2010 Subhash Chander ...Petitioner Versus Managing Director PUNGRAIN and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for the respondents **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) 1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14126 and 16931 of 2010 as issues involve are inter-connected in both the petitions. 2. In Civil Writ Petition No.14126 of 2010 challenge is to the order 25.6.2010 Annexure P-5 passed by Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner and forfeiting security, apart from blacklisting the petitioner. 3. Case set out in the petition is that the petitioner's bid for labour and cartage work in the year 2010-11 was accepted and work was allotted to him. The work was to be executed within eight kilometers of Jalandhar city centre. Dispute arose about the work Civil Writ Petition No.14126 of 2010 -2- **** being beyond the area stipulated in the contract and on account of that petitioner refused to carry out the work. This led to passing of the impugned order dated 25.6.2010. According to the petitioner, refusal by the petitioner to work was for a valid reason as the work was required to be executed at distance of ten kilometers while according to the respondents the petitioner failed to discharge his obligation under the contract on account of which contract had to be awarded at a higher rate and thus, there was valid justification for cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner, forfeiting the security and black listing the petitioner. It has also been submitted that there are disputed questions and as per the contract, alternative remedy of arbitration was available to the petitioner. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not disputed that there is an arbitration clause. Even otherwise, there being disputed issues of fact, the same cannot be gone into in summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is explained by learned counsel for the petitioner that remedy of arbitration may not be appropriate as total amount in dispute between the parties is less than ` five lacs and remedy of arbitration may involve large expenditure to both sides. 6. In this view of the matter, we direct Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Punjab who is the head of the concerned department to look into the matter and take decision on the rival claims within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Civil Writ Petition No.14126 of 2010 -3- **** order. The said officer may also consider the claim of the petitioner against indefinite period of black listing and for releasing of security and payment for the bills submitted either to full extent or to partial extent having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. He may also explore possibility of a reasonable settlement. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge October 28,2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge Civil Writ Petition No.14126 of 2010 -4- ****