WP(C) 5193/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. J.I. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. B ora, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati Municipal Corporation (GMC). By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the Annexure-8 order dated 12.7.2011, by which the Commissioner, GMC has terminated the contract that was awarded to the petitioner in respect of wo rk for Improvement of Mobile Water Supply Point at Satpukhuri under GMC Annual P lan 2008-09, for which short Tender Notice dated 7.1.2010 was issued. The tender submitted by the petitioner having been accepted, he was offered with the work by order dated 11.3.2010. The work order was followed by formal signing of the a greement and thereafter by Annexure-3 letter dated 26.3.2010, the petitioner was directed to start the work within three days and to complete the same within th e stipulated period of 60 days. It appears that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to execute the w ork within the stipulated period of time. By Annexure-5 A representation dated N IL with the endorsement dated 15.7.2010, the petitioner had prayed for extension of time limit fixed in the work order. As per the said representation, the peti tioner was handed over with the necessary drawing and design on 13.7.2011 and th at the necessary clearance of the site was also made on 14.7.2011. In the said r epresentation, the petitioner also pleaded extension of time on the ground of in ability to conduct roller work because of rains. By the said letter, the petitio ner made request for extension of time upto 30.8.2010. In the writ petition, although the petitioner has stated about extension of time granted to him, but he has not even obliquely stated as to for what period the extension was granted. For a ready reference, the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition (relevant portions) are quoted below: & & & &.. Thereafter the petitioner was knocking the door of the respondents to ovide the running bill for which the measurement of works was submitted by the p etitioner in due course of time before the respondent authority and in this way the respondent No. 2 one on the other pretext avoided the mater as the fixed tim e was going to be expired for execution of the works order, the petitioner findi ng no alternative was compelled to write various letters, particularly on 04/06/ 2010 seeking extension of time of the works order for completion of works and ag ain on 15/7/2-1- and lastly on 31/08/2010 the petitioner submitted his represent ation seeking extension of time and the respondent authority realizing their fai lure granted extension of time basing on the representation dated 04/06/2010 and 15/07/2010 submitted by the petitioner but remained silent over the representat ion dated 31/08/2010. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, Mr. Bora, learned Standing C ounsel, GMC has produced the letter dated 4.8.2011 addressed to the petitioner b y which the Chief Engineer, GMC accepting the request made by the petitioner gra nted extension of time upto 30.8.2010. There is no whisper in the writ petition about issuance of this letter dated 4.8.2010 to the petitioner granting extensio n of time upto 30.8.2010. Thus, there is failure on the part of the petitioner t o state the fact clearly towards filing of the writ petition. Above apart, when the petitioner himself had prayed for extension of time limit upto 30.8.2010 and the same was granted to him, he cannot resile back from that position so as to urge the same very grounds as were urged earlier. As per his o wn admission, the formal work order was followed by drawing and design on 13.7.2 010 and necessary clearance of the site was also made on 14.7.2010. Thus, even i f the starting point of time is taken to be as 13.7.2010, he was to complete the work within 60 days as per the work order. He having failed to do so, the autho rity in the GMC invoking the provision of the Tender Notice has terminated the c ontract awarded by order dated 12.7.2011. As regards the various factual aspects of the matter, the petitioner has urged i n the writ petition, this Court exercising the power of juridical review under A rticle 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make a roving enquiry into the di sputed questions of fact. The matter being pure and simple a contractual work aw arded to the petitioner and there being failure on his part to execute the same within the stipulated period of time, coupled with the fact that in the writ pet ition, there is also no disclosure of the order dated 4.8.2010, by which he was granted extension upto 30.8.2010, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petiti on for further hearing and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.