IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9419 of 2009 DAYANAND Versus BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM L ----------- 02/ 07.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has prayed for quashing letter no. 487 dated 08.04.2009 issued by Deputy Chief Engineer, South Bihar Circle, Patna of Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., Patna -15, whereby work order of the petitioner was cancelled and his security money was ordered to be forfeited on the ground of non completion of work within time under S.B.D. Clause 14 and contract agreement order contained in Annexure – 2 of this application. He has also prayed for payment of admitted dues and grant of any other consequential dues. The grievance of the petitioner is that without making any scientific inquiry, a wrong report was used for the purpose of selecting a site for construction of the bridge in question. Learned counsel submits that he started the work with earth cutting work of both the abutment. He submits 2 that hard rock was found under both the bases of abutment. After cutting 3 meter deep a huge hard stone was found in the base of first abutment. Learned counsel states that for meeting the aforesaid challenged he purchased extra items which are detailed in paragraph 3(xi) of the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that though some payment has been made, but many articles purchased by the petitioner which are lying on the spot have not been paid for. The petitioner submits that he could not complete the work in time on account of circumstances beyond his control like encountering of hard rock. He submits that the grounds of the respondents cancelling the tender and forfeiting the security money are arbitrary and illegal and against terms of the agreement. Learned counsel for the Nigam has drawn the attention of the Court and states that the standard documents of the Nigam provide for settlement of dispute by way of arbitration which is detailed in Clause 25. The aforesaid clause provides that in case of any dispute, the petitioner within 7 days will make an objection before Deputy Chief Engineer who would give his reply within 15 days 3 thereafter. If the petitioner is in any way aggrieved with the aforesaid reply, he can take the matter to the Managing Director of the Nigam within 15 days who would dispose of the application within ten days. It further provides that in case if the petitioner is not satisfied, he can request the Managing Director of the Nigam for appointing an arbitrator for settling the dispute. After hearing counsel for the parties the writ application is disposed of with liberty to represent his grievance before Managing Director of the Nigam. It will be open to the petitioner to also point out before him that the security money has been wrongly forfeited. kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)