DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JUSTECE DHIRENDRA MISHRA <& HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ W.P. Fcl No.775/2010 (Petition U/A 226 of Constitution of India) PETITCONER Vs RESPONDENTS M/$ D.S.H. Construction Company, Thr^ough its Partner, Shri Shridhar S. Hawale, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Business, Havin9 its office at 404-/\, Jagat Apartment, Ravi Nagar Square, AmrQvati Road, Nogpur. 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Througj^ its Secretary, Panchayat <& Rural Development bepartment, Raipur. 2. Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, through its Chief Executive Officer, Civil Lines, Raipur. 3. The Executive Engineer, Project Implementation Unit-2 (P.I.U-2), Prdyhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (P.M.6.SY.), Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Durg Circle, Head Quarter Rajnandgaon (ChhattiS9arh) Present: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate for the State. O R A L OR b E R (Passed on 26.02.2010) ^ 1 Per Dhirendra Mishra. J; 1. Heard on I.A. No.l, application for dispensing with default. 2. The application is allowed and the default, as pointed by the office, is condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. Briefly statgd, grievance of the petitioner-company is that the petitioner was awarded the work of construction <& maintenance of rural roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Phase-VI for the year 2006-07 in bistrict Rajnandgaon. The petitioner, after signing of the contract and furnishing the requisite performance security, as stipulated in ITB, vide / \\\ Annexure P-1 dated 31.7.2007, commenced the work, however, he could not complete the same within the allotted time and therefore, the petitioner was served with the notices (Annexure P-3 <& P-5) for the slow ^ .. progress in the work. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notices vide Annexure P-4 <& P-6 and explained that the work could not progress due to rainy season and because of hurdles by the naxallites. The petitioner applied for extension of time up to 31.3.2008 vide application dated 10.2.2008 (Annexure P-7), however, the petitioner was served witli a final show cause notice dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure P-9) stating therein that if the proportionate progress is not shown in the work by 10.1.2009, the agreement shall be terminated. Finally, the agreement was terminated on 16.2.2009 vide Annexure P-11 under Clause 52 of the agreement. * 5. The petitioner's application for revocation of termination of agreement was duly forwarded by the concerned Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer, who, in turn, also recommended for revival of the agreement to the Chief Executive Officer, Rural Road Dev^lppment Agency. A meting was held by the Chief Executive Officer to consider the application of the petitioner, however, the application was rejected on 24.11.2009 vide Annexure P-18. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work could not be completed within the allowed period because of various difficulties faced by the petitioner in execution of the work beyond his control. The petitioner had detailed the reasons for the delay in reply to the notices served upon the petitioner as also in the application for extension of time. The officers, who are responsibte for the execution of work, recommended that termination of agreement should be revoked in view of the reasons assigned by the petitioner, however, the petitioner's application for revocation of termination has been arbitrarily rejected without assigning any reason. * 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that from pleadings in the writ petition itself it would be evident that the petitioner could not complete the work within stipulated period despite several TT-T \v^ notices by the authorities. The work was terminated after issuance of final show causenotice. The dispute raised in this petition is purely a contractual dispute between the State and the petitioner and no public element is involved. The contract stands terminated way back on 16.2.2009. Clause 24 <& 25 of the Part-1 of the (yeneral Conditions of the contract provides for dispute redressal system and arbitration. Clause 25.1 of the agreement specifically provides that party aggr\eved by the decision of the competent authority nominated under Clause 24 may prefer an appeal to the arbitration tribunal constituted under <t-,he C.G. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. From the documents available in record it is evident that a contract agreement was executed between the petitioner and the State dnd work was to be completed within a specified period. On failure of the petitioner to complete the work within allotted time, the contract was terminated after serving the petitioner with the show cause notice. Clause 24 provides for dispute redressal mechanism, whereas Clause 25 provides that where a party is not satisfied with the decision of the competent authority under Clause 24 he may prefer an appeal before the arbitration tribunal constituted under the C.G. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. 10. Keeping in view the nature of dispute raised by the petitioner in the instant petition, we are of the opinion that adjudication of the same would require recording of evidence as disputed question of facts are involved. 11. Since the petitioner has an alterative and efficocious remedy of filing appeal before the arbitration tribunal as per provisions of the agreement, we dismiss this petition holding that the same is not maintainable in view of availability of alterative and efficacious remedy. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge