(2?/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’bie Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Writ Petition (C) No.7503/2011 Petitioner Respondents M/s. B. Himmatlal Agarwai, through its Director, Shri B. Himmatiai Agalwal, aged about 32 years, Resident at 364, Hanumannagar, Nagpun Maharashtra State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 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 District Raipur, (CG) Chairman/Collector, Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna, Distriér‘ 'p‘EiFii'r tEr‘iiL Superintending Engineer, PMGSY Project Circle Durg, District Raipur (CG) The Executive Engineer cum Member Secretary, Project Implementation Unit No.ll, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Division Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Writ Petition Under Article 2261227 of the Constitution of India Vs. Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents. o R A L o R D E R (Passed on 12‘“ December, 201 1) Heard. 2. The petitioner was awarded contract for construction and maintenance of certain roads under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna (PMGSY) and an agreement for package CG 15-50 bearing No.3/PIU-3/2007—O8 was entered into between the parties on 05.32008. It appears that on account of non-compietion of work in time, many notices were issued and after the last notice dated 20.5.2011 (Annexure-P/7), the contract was terminated under Clause 552(3) of the agreement on 09.9.2011 and it has been directed vide impugned order dated 02.11.2011 to invoke bank guarantee contained in the order. j; 3. Smt. Kochar submits that earlier also various notices were issued and on account of such controversy,'the dispute was referred by the petitioner to the concerned authority on 10.10.2011 vide Annexure-P/10. Her submission is that according to Clause 24 of the agreement, the dispute was referred, but no action has been taken on the said dispute, till date, and ultimately, order dated 02.11.2011 has been passed, which says that the agreement was v cancelled on 09.09.2011. Her submission is that without deciding the dispute raised by the petitioner under Clause 24 of the agreement, no decision could have been taken by the concerned authority relating to invocation of bank guarantee and order relating to cancellation of the agreement. 4. On perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-P/1), it appears that the agreement was terminated on 09.9.2011, but nowhere it appeared as to whether the agreement was terminated after Bh'ri @ deciding the dispute referred under Clause 24 of the Agreement or it was terminated before it. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition, at this stage, with a direction that if the dispute raised by the petitioner vide Annxure— P/10 dated 10.10.2011 has not been decided by the concemed authority, tiii date, as contended by the petitioner, the same shaii be decided within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, before the said authority and decision thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner. We further direct that till the decision of the dispute, referred under Clause 24 of the Agreement, status-duo in reiation to invocation of bank guarantee, as it obtains today, shaii be maintained by the Certified copy as per ruies. ,W..... Sd/- Sum‘i Kumar Sinha sd/_ JUdge Radhe Shyam