\67 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR D8VISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARS1NHA, J. Petitioner Respondents WPfQNo.6968of2009 M/s S Kumar's Associates, GS Compound, New Bus Stand Transport Nagar Korba (CG) acting through its Constituted Attorney Sanjay Kumar Agrawa! S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Agrawal,aged about 35 years, R/o GS Compound, New Bus Stand Transport Nagar - Korba (CG) VERSUS 1 M/s South Eastern Coalfield Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bitaspur (CG) 2 Chief General Manager, Bishrampur Area, SECL Distt Sarguja (CG) 3 Dy Genera! Manager, Bishrampur Area, SCL Distt Sarguja (CG) Writ oetition under Article 226 of the Constltution of India Present: Shri MK Sinha, counsel for the petitioner. Dr NK Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri Shailendra Shukia, counsel for the respondents. Order (4th March, 2010) The foliowing order of the Court was passed .by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing IA Nos.1 & 2, the documents filed aiong with these appiications are taken on record. 2) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. ;^^^. ^-. ^{^-^>. S^S ~^ ^. 3) The petitioner has fiied this writ petition for the following reliefs: "10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the Respondents to make payment of undisputed amount sum of Rs.20,42,704/- with interest and also direct them to pay compensation of the machine as per law detailed in (Ann P/23). 10.3 Any other order that the Hon'bie Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be aiso passed. 10.4 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners." 4) The petitioner, thus, in substance is seeking a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20,42,704/- with interest, which according to the petitioner is undisputed amount payable to him. 5) Dr NK Shukla, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that, the sum of Rs.20,42,704/- ciaimed by the petitioner is not payable to the petitioner by the respondents as the work contract awarded to the petitioner has been terminated by the respondents at petitioner's risk and cost, as the petitioner could not complete the work within the specified and extended period. 6) Shri MK Sinha, learned counsel for the petitloner submitted that, the petitioner cannot be blamed for non-completion of the work within the specified and extended period as the site was not w^w^a»wsw»^^ ^^ ..-^f"'3^ /^^ • "%. l^ made availabie by the respondents to the petitioner for a sufflciently long period. 7) Be that as it may, the fact remains that, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted without resolving the above mentioned disputed questions of facts, which course is not permissible in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitutjon of tndia. 8) We, therefore, dedine toentertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner/contractor. 9) The writ petition, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily with the liberty to the petitioner to avail the other remedies availabie to the petitioner under reievant provisions of law. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu