@ Q) mwgm @mm 1N THE HONORABLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT AT BILASPUR w. P. [c1 No. oz H § [2009 PETITIONER: a? Raipur, Chhatu'sgarh Vinay Kumar Singh S/o Late Lalbabu Singh, r Aged about 28 years, Resident of Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Dist: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 01."/State of Chhattisgarh through their Secretary, Public Works Deparhnent. Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur of Chhattisgarh. 02. Engineer in Chief, Public Works Department, 03/ Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, /Bi1aspur, Chhattisgarh. 04. Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambikapur, District: Surguja of Chhattisgarh. Department, Jashpur Division, District: Jashpur of Chhattisgarh. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. / 05f“ Executive Eng'neer, Public Works " @ WWWW mm (Q?C9 4 l .‘H . m zoo aw m- (W) mm ...................................................m zoo ~mm (W) ¥ m x m zoo m amm (W) 'wmm mmm 47/ WW§fg€tW $3imm ‘4. From 'rhe documents annexed fhe agreemem‘ be‘rween The period allowed for complefing of The ogreemem‘ provides for wi‘rh The pefifion if is eviden’r That )ar’ries was signed on 11.2.2002 and the work was 18 months. douse-29 resolution of any dispufe arising ouf of The con‘rracf through orbifrm‘ion and The clause gives compIeTe details of procedure to be followed while invoking the arbitration clause. From perusal of the ap 1lications dated 12.7.2007 (Annexure P‘4) & 11.9.2007 (Annexure P-b) addressed by the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer and is aggrieved by the rescission of contract under Clause-3(C) of lthe conditions of contract instead of Clause-14. . It is seh‘led law ’rha’r while of contracts, is permissible only'if: 'sion made is malafid’e'or intended to favour someone, (u) the same Is so arbitrary and Irratlonal that no der law could have arrived at it or rest. The dispute raised by the commercml dispute arising out of a the Chief Engineer respectively, it appears that the petitioner matters as to tenders or awar 'nvoking power of judicial reviewin (i) the process adopted’or'de responSIble authority acting u (m) It affected the public petitioner is purely a private contract agreement between t. e parties e I ’ mm m zoo aimm (ma) WWW mwm mwaifwm mmm éwmmm 6. Taking in’ro consideratio‘n that in the cohtr‘act agreement there is a provision for resolution of dispute through arbitration under Clause—29, the dispute arose between the parties way back in the year 2007 and the petitioner without invoking the efficacious alternative remedy of arbitration has directly approached this Court by invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are of the opinion that the instant petition has to be dismissed'at the admission stage itself being not maintainable on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative l.‘ WWWW—Fws—i 1 [zoos—1,00,000. up remedy. Ordered accordingly. ‘ i v Sci/- 'Roshan/4 v Sd/- v Dhirendra Mishra 1 Judge r R.N. Chandrakar Judge