// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3787/2003 M/s Surya Construction Company, Bikaner ...Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through the Executive Engineer, PWD, Division Hindauncity, District Karauli ...Respondent Date of Order ::: 26.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Suresh Sahni, Counsel for petitioner Ms. Manju Dave, Additional G.A., for respondent #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer:- “In view of the above cogent facts, law and circumstances of the case, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to reverse/quash the impugned recoveries made vide various running bills and the respondent be further restrained from making any recovery on account of liquidated damages and may kindly further be directed to grant extension up to 14.8.2003 under Clause-5 of the Agreement and the respondent may kindly be further directed to pay the amount recovered so far vide various running bills from the petitioner along with the interest @ 24% per annum accrued, thereon, and the cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner; and may pass such order(s) which this Hon'ble Court // 2 // deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” The learned counsel for both the parties do not dispute that the action of the respondent, which is under challenge in this writ petition, has arisen out of the agreement executed in between both the parties, wherein there is specific Clause-23 about settlement of disputes by the Committee and without approaching the said Committee as per Clause-23 the present writ petition has been filed. Clause-23 of the Agreement reads as under:- “Clause 23: Standing Committee for Settlement of disputes: If any question, difference or objection, whatsoever shall arise in any way, in connection with or arising out of this instrument, or the meaning of operation of any part thereof, or the rights, duties or liabilities of either party then, save in so far as the decision of any such matter, as herein before provided for, and been so decided, every such matter constituting a total claim of Rs.50,000/- or above, whether its decision has been otherwise provided for and whether it has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the contract should be terminated, or has been rightly terminated, and as regards the rights or obligations of the parties, as the result of such termination, shall be referred for decision to the empowered Standing Committee, which would consist of the followings: (i) Administrative Secretary concerned. (ii) Finance Secretary or his nominee, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary and/or Chief Accounts Officer. (iii) Law Secretary or his nominee, not below the rank of Joint Legal Remembrancer. (iv) Chief Engineer-cum-Addl. Secretary of the // 3 // concerned department. (v) Chief Engineer concerned (Member-Secretary)” The Engineer-in-charge, on receipt of application along with nonrefundable prescribed fee, (the fee would be two percent of the amount in dispute, not exceeding Rs. one lac) from the Contractor, shall refer the disputes to the committee – within a period of one month from the date of receipt of application. Procedure and/Application for referring cases for settlement by the Standing Committee shall be, as given in Form RPWA 90.” In view of the above, I find that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under Clause-23 of the Agreement, therefore, the present writ petition filed directly before this Court is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed as such with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 4 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.3011/2003 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3787/2003 M/s Surya Construction Company, Bikaner ...Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through the Executive Engineer, PWD, Division Hindauncity, District Karauli ...Respondent Date of Order ::: 26.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Suresh Sahni, Counsel for petitioner Ms. Manju Dave, Additional G.A., for respondent #### By the Court:- Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//