THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.810 of 2008 Date: 15.03.2011 Between : The Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Kolkata, rep.by its Deputy General Manager. .… Petitioner and The Contonment Board, Court Compound, S.P. Road, Secunderbad-3, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer and another. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.810 of 2008 ORDER : Heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Contonment Board and with the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of. 2. The petitioner-Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 4.1.2008 in proceedings No.SCB/EB/96/Qtrs/Tarbund/67, passed by the 1st respondent- Contonment Board blacklisting the petitioner-company and forfeiting the EMD and the bank guarantee furnished by it, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner-company was awarded a contract for construction of 96 Class-IV Quarters at Tadbund, Contonment Area, Secunderabad, through an agreement entered into by both the parties on 3.4.2006. The petitioner-company furnished a bank guarantee, apart from paying security deposit at the rate of 2 ½% for execution of the said work. It appears that due the alleged slow pace of work, the work could not be executed within the stipulated time. On the said premise, the respondent-Board passed the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner-company and forfeited the EMD and the bank guarantee furnished by it towards the security deposit. Hence the present writ petition. 4. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that an Arbitrator has been appointed by this Court and the said Arbitrator has seized of the matter with reference to the dispute which has arisen out of the aforesaid agreement. Since an Arbitrator has already been appointed, who can go into all the aspects in the matter including the issue involved in this writ petition, the relief sought for in this writ petition need not be adjudicated on merits. The petitioner-company can as well canvass the issue before the learned Arbitrator and seek appropriate award. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company accedes to the same. However, he submits that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner-company is still in force and apprehends that it would be encashed and, therefore, seeks to safeguard the interest of the petitioner till it avails a remedy either before the Arbitrator or any appropriate Court of Law. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, while permitting the petitioner-company to work out its remedy, insofar as the bank guarantee, it is directed that the same shall not be encashed for a period of four weeks from today. 7. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 15.03.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.810 of 2008 15.03.2011 (Msr)