IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 11889 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.8.2009 Surjit Singh ......Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.S.K.Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 10.3.2009 cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner for the work of sanitation and forfeiting the earnest money. 2. Earlier CWP No. 6746 of 2009 was filed in this Court on same cause of action which was disposed of on 4.5.2009 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter as a supervisory authority over the Municipal Council and dispose of the matter by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, order dated 2.7.2009 (Annexure P-4 ) has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner holding that cancellation of the contract was on account of unsatisfactory work of the petitioner. 3. In the present petition, the order of the Deputy Commissioner has also been challenged on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner failed to consider that the order of cancellation was passed on 10.3.2009 relying upon the report of the Sanitary Inspector of the same date and the real reason for cacelling the work was not unsatisfactory work but malafides. C.W.P.No. 11889 of 2009 [2] 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It is not disputed that the work was allotted for a period of one year from 16.9.2008 to 15.9.2009 and substantial period is already over. The question which survives is only whether the petitioner is entitled to damages for the loss suffered. For deciding this issue, disputed questions of fact whether the work of the petitioner was satisfactory and whether the petitioner had complied with the requirement of the contract, have to be adjudicated upon. Forum of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not an appropriate one for decision of disputed questions of facts. 6. The petition is dismissed without prejudice to any other remedy in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 10, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No C.W.P.No. 11889 of 2009 [3] C.W.P.No. 11889 of 2009 [4]