IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.11455 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.7.2010 M/s Shring Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of Tender Notice dated 26.5.2010 and 29.5.2010, terminating the contract earlier granted to the petitioner. Directions have also been sought to allow the petitioner to continue and complete the construction of hydel project as per the contract. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 on 5.3.2008 for completion of balance work of Head and Tail Race Channel Power House Building, Mukerian Hydel Project, Stage-II. The petitioner performed the work but dispute arose. Letter dated 30.3.2010, Annexure P-4, was received by the petitioner whereby the Chief CWP No.11455 of 2010 Engineer concerned alleged that the petitioner had not made serious efforts to complete the work within the stipulated period inspite of various letters mentioned therein. It was also alleged that dewatering management was inadequate and inspite of assurances given, there was no satisfactory progress. Demands made by the petitioner for funds were beyond the contract. The work had been delegated unauthorisedly to some other persons. The petitioner was put to notice that if needful was not done, security deposit will be forfeited and the work will be allotted to an alternative agency at the risk and cost of the petitioner, as per condition No.3.2 of the contract. There was further letter dated 26.5.2010, making certain allegations. Finally, vide letter dated 26.5.2010, Annexure P-6, the contract was rescinded with the observations that the work will be executed at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter dated 8.6.2010, Annexure P-9, invoked the arbitration Clause 3.23 for adjudication of all the disputes. Accordingly, vide letter dated 17.6.2010, Annexure P-15, an arbitrator was appointed, to which the petitioner filed objections vide letter dated 25.6.2010, Annexure P-16. Tender Notice dated 29.5.2010, Annexure P-12, was issued for awarding the work to some other agency at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The petitioner made representation, Annexure P-7, to which no reply was received. 3. It is clear that the dispute raised in the petition is covered by arbitration agreement between the parties and an 2 CWP No.11455 of 2010 arbitrator has been appointed. The issue of validity or otherwise of appointment of arbitrator is not subject matter of this writ petition, for which remedy may be available under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. In view of above, the writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage. It is made clear that this order will not affect other remedies of the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 02, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3