C.W.P. No.23278 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.23278 of 2011 Date of Decision. 14.12.2011 2. C.W.P. No.23279 of 2011 3. C.W.P. No.23280 of 2011 4. C.W.P. No.23281 of 2011 5. C.W.P. No.23282 of 2011 Sukhmani Engineers, Nimakh Enclave, Sirhind Road, Patiala, Punjab through its authorized representative Shri Yog Raj Chadha .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Adocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has a justification as to how he could not complete the work as per the terms of the contract and claims that the imposition of penalty made by the respondent was wrong. The petitioner will take the appropriate procedure prescribed for raising a dispute and for adjudication through an arbitral process. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a judgment in Union of India Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. in SLP (C) No.18914 of 2010 dated 18.04.2011 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not to be seen as whittled down by C.W.P. No.23278 of 2011 -2- an arbitral agreement contained in the contract. In this case a contract, which was entrusted to the respondent for completion within four months has not seen its end after a passage of four years. The petitioner has several justifications as to why it is not possible and would show lapses of the Government themselves, including resources crunch, as to why the work could not be completed. There are factual issues of whether the alleged Government lapses were responsible for the delay or whether the petitioner was really to be blamed for inability to conclude the contract. It is not denied that there is a provision in the contract itself for levying penalty but what is in challenge is the decision for such a levy. It would be only appropriate in a situation like this where there are factual considerations, which are seriously in dispute between parties that the matter seeks an adjudication through an arbitral process. 2. All the writ petitions are disposed of for the petitioner to work out a more effective and efficacious remedy available through an arbitral process under the special facts and circumstances arising in these cases. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 14, 2011 Pankaj*