WP(C) 6264/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.NK SINGH Heard Mr.K.Bhattacharje, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Saika, lear ned GA appearing for the respondents. Considering the prayer sought for in the present writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage basing on the admitted fact of t he parties. On 26.09.2008, the Chief Engineer, PWD (PMGSY Works), Assam, now renamed as Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) published an NIT inviting tenders for co nstruction of Roads, i.e. vide different package of works including package No.A S-1741. The contract price for the said package No.AS-1741 was Rs.25,56,19,553.0 0. In response to the NIT, petitioner and others submitted their bids. After con sideration of the bids submitted by the petitioner and others the bid submitted by the present petitioner had been accepted vide letter of acceptance dated 19.0 1.2009 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (PMGSY Works) (Annexure-1 to the writ p etition) to the petitioner. After acceptance of the bid submitted by the petitioner under th e said acceptance order dated 19.01.2009 for the package of work i.e. AS-1741, t he petitioner also had furnished performance security by way of bank guarantee. Thereafter the petitioner on 24.02.2009 signed the contract documents/agreement for the said contract work. For deciding the matter in dispute in the present writ petition, clause 24 of the said contract agreement is required to be referred and discuss ed. Accordingly, for easy reference, clause 24 of the said contract agreement is quoted hereunder: 24. Dispute Redressal System. 24.1 If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arises in conn ection with or arising out of this Contract or the execution of Works or mainten ance of the Works thereunder, whether before its commencement or during the prog ress of Works or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the Contract, i t shall, in the first instance, be referred for settlement to the competent auth ority, described along with their powers in the Contract Data, above the rank of the Engineer. The competent authority shall, within a period of forty-five days after being requested in writing by the Contractor to do so, convey his decisio n to the Contractor. Such decision in respect of every matter so referred shall, subject to review as hereinafter provided, be final and binding upon the Contra ctor. In case the Works is already in progress, the Contractor shall proceed wit h the execution of the Works, including maintenance thereof, pending receipt of the decision of the competent authority as aforesaid, with all due diligence. 24.2 Either party will have the right of appeal, against the decision of the competent authority, to the Standing Empowered Committee if the amount against e xceeds rupees one lakh. 24.3 The composition of the Empowered Standing Committee will be: I. One official member, Chairman of the Standing Empowered Committee, not b elow the rank of Additional Secretary to the State Government; II. One official member not below the rank of chief engineer; and III. One non official member who will be technical expert of Chief Engineer’s level selected by the Contractor from a panel of three persons given to him by the Employer. 24.4 The Contractor and the Employer will be entitled to present their case i n writing duly supported by documents. If so requested, the Standing Empowered C ommittee may allow one opportunity to the Contractor and the Employer for oral a rguments for a specified period. The Empowered Committee shall give its decision within a period of ninety days from the date of appeal, failing which the contr actor can approach the appropriate court for the resolution of the dispute. 24.5 The decision of the Standing Empowered Committee will be binding on the Employee for payment of claims up to five percent of the initial Contract Price. The Contractor can accept and receive payment after signing as in full and fin al settlement of all claims . If he does not accept the decision, he is not barr ed from approaching the courts. Similarly, if the Employer does not accept the d ecision of the Standing Empowered Committee above the limit of five percent of t he initial Contract Price, he will be free to approach the courts applicable und er the law. Under clause 25 of the said agreement, there will be no arbitrat ion for settlement of any dispute between the parties. However, the matter in di spute between the parties can be settled in the manner mentioned in clause 24 of the said agreement. In the present case, there was a dispute between the petitioner and authority as to the progress of the contract work. As there was delay in exe cution of the contract work and as there was some dispute between the parties, t he contract order for the said work package in favour of the petitioner had been terminated on 19.07.2010. (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). The petitioner, by resorting to the remedial measures mentioned in clause 24 of the agreement had filed an application dated 28.09.2010 (Annexur e 12) to the Superintending Engineer (Roads) for settlement of the dispute betwe en the parties for the said work package. But as to the competent authority ment ioned in clause 24.1 of the said contract work, it is submitted by Mr.Saikia, le arned GA that the competent authority would be the Chief Engineer (PMGSY, Works) for contract worth more than Rs.2 lakhs and the Supdt Engineer will be competen t authority for contract work up to Rs.2 lakhs. As stated above, the value of the contract work for the said pac kage is more than a crore, therefore, it is the unanimous submission of learned counsel for the parties that the competent authority would be the Chief Engineer (PMGSY, Works). As per clause 24 of the said contract agreement, the application filed by the contractor for settlement of dispute is to be decided by the compe tent authority within a period of 45 days after the request in writing is made b y the contractor. It is the submission of Mr.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for th e petitioner that in spite of request in writing for settlement of the disputes in the manner provided in the said clause for deciding the dispute between the p arties, the competent authority has not taken decision. The petitioner had not o nly approached the Supdt Engineer by filing said representation dated 28.09.2010 but also approached the Commissioner, PWD (Roads) by filing another representat ion dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure 10). Mr.Saikia, learned SC fairly submits that he has no instruction as to whether the said representations filed by the petitioner to the Supdt Engi neer and also to the Commissioner, PWD (Roads) had been disposed of or not. Be that as it may, parties are to abide by the conditions mentio ned in the said agreement. As such, it is the bounden duty of the competent auth ority to consider and dispose of the applications filed by the petitioner for se ttlement of the dispute in the said contract work package No.1741. For the foregoing discussion, in view of the given facts mention ed hereinabove, the Chief Engineer, (PMGSY Works) is directed to dispose of the said representation filed by the petitioner in respect of the said contract pack age No.1741 within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this ju dgment and order by passing reasoned order. However, for the convenience of the parties, the petitioner is a llowed to file fresh representation/additional representation, if necessary, bef ore the competent authority, i.e. Chief Engineer (PMGSY Works) within a week fro m today. In case, the petitioner filed fresh representation/additional represent ation pursuant to the order of this court, the Chief Engineer, (PMGSY Works) sha ll consider and dispose of the representation within 45 days pus time taken by t he present petitioner for filing fresh representation/additional representation. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed.