mviaaien Emngh (1) "\ 1" BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT 'BILASPUR ICHHATTISGARH) 'w.P. LC) No. é? Q? or 201 1 {W M/s Harsh Construction Co., Ambikapur, through Santosh Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Late Mahatam Singh, aged ghout 4O years, infront of Sanjay Park, 'Ambikapur, Distt. Surgixja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through— / PETITIONER /, I Secretaly Department of Public Works, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C. G.) Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur, Distt. Ram nib” $urg’dja Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Public Works Division Baloda Bazar (C.G.) (C.G.) Department, I" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 01. I PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONERS : w $ ‘ aw L \xtrau, I NW ,m xv «kw? “ RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench 1 Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & PFTITIONER Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. WRIT PETlTlON gC) NO.676O OF 2011 M/s Harsh Construction Co. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Present :- Shri J.Pi Shukia, Advocate for the petitioner. RESPONDENTS Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Adv. Generai for the State. (Passed on this 18‘“ day of November, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. ORDER The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order the 11-2-2011 (Annexure — PM) passed by the respondent No.4 by which the security deposit of the petitioner has been confiscated and the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6.19,548/— within 10 days, faiiing which the said amount as directed to be adjusted from the amount payable to the petitioner. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court without availing the remedy of arbitration clause as per the conditions of contract, thus this petition may be dismissed on this ground alone. On perusal of the conditions of contract, it appears that there is an arbitration clause ie. clause 28, which provides for arbitration with regard to all disputes relating to contract between the petitioner and the Government under the agreement. ln the agreement, clause .28 specifically provides for settlement of > disputes. Thus, on the ground of availability of the above-stated remedy, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy as may be available under the PW F” l , wag? 7 / batlsh g . K;Agnihotri ‘Sd/- ) S‘H‘ gs she“??i// Judge, \_’ ,;. w l g