^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Sunil KymarSlnha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma, JJ. Writ Petition (C) No.3904/2011 Petitioner M/s. B. Himmatl^l Agrawal, through Its Director, Shri B. Himmatlal Agrawal; aged about 32 years, Resident at 364, Hanumannagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra. Vs. Respondents 4. 6. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh The Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Civil Line, Raipur District Raipur (CG) The Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh Rural Development Agency, Civil Line, Raipur, Disfrict Raipur (CG) Chairman/Collector, Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna, District Raipur (CG) Superintending Engineer, PMGSY Project Circle Durg, District Raipur (CG) The Executive Engineer cum Member Secretary, Project Implementation Unit No.Il, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yoja Division - Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State / respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (21.07.2011.) Writ Petition (C) No.3904/2011 The followinci order oLthe Cpurt was passed bv Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner was awarded contract for construction and maintenance of Rural Road vide package No.C.G. 15-07 under PMGSY scheme. The petitioner had given bank guarantee for Rs.8.43 lacs for completion of the entire contract work. By a letter dated 13.4.2011, the bank guarantee of Rs.8.43 lacs has already been invoked by the respondents on account of alleged breach of contract committed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not performed the maintenarice work in accordance v/ith the contract, further estimate of Rs.59.38 lacs, relating to ^the said work has been prepared and memo dated 25.5.2011 has been issued to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has challenged the invocation of the bank guarantee and has prayed for refund of amount of the bank guarantee with 18% interest and has also challenged the validity of the order invoking bank guarantee and the estimate prepared by the concemed authorities (Annexure- P/9 & P/12). 4. Smt. Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that f. ^ ^ -....' "frfg petitioner has performed its part of contract and has completed the work, and itis not a case of breach of contract. Allegations raised against the petitioner are false. The estimate prepared is also not correct, therefore, invocation of bank guarantee on account of breach of contract is not in accordance with law. <@ Writ Petition (C) No.3904/2011 5. Shri UNS Deo, learned Govt. Advocate raises preliminary objection that in view of the provisions of Clause 24.1 and other sub-clauses of Clause 24, which provides for Dispute Redressal System, this writ petition would not be maintainable and the petitioner would be required to avail the Dispute Redressal System agreed between the parties under the agreement. He also argues that for taking a decision on the allegations made by the petitioner, recording of evidence would be required, which would not be possible by the writ Court. 6. After going through the contents of the writ petition as also the contents of Clause 24 of the agreement, we decline to entertain this writ petition as there is a provision of Dispute Redressal System vide Clause 24 ' and the petitioner has admittedly not availed the aforesaid provision for redressal ofthe dispute raised bythe petitioner. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the provisions of Clause 24 of the agreement relating to the Dispute Redressal System. Certified copy as per rules. ______—— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge IBIItBSBilBIISKi11! —r—ar. ••>».: