^T^^ /y^% ^7'!^B^ 1 ^^.•.' ^ HIGHCQURT QFCHHATTISGARhLAT^ILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma ^ Petitioner Writ Petition (C.) No.4823 of 2011 M/s Sai Construction through Partner Atul Shukla, S/o Sri Sudama Prasad Shukla, aged about 39 years, R/o Green Park Colony, Bilaspur (CG) Respondents versus 1. 2. 3. The State of Chhattisgarh through The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur (CG) The Chief Engineer, Bilaspur Region, Public Works Department, Bilaspur (CG) The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Division No.2, Bilaspur (CG) Present: Shri RahulJha,counsel for the petitioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate forthe State/respondents. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23rd August, 2011) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J-: Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has challenged validity of reassignment of the contract under Clause 3 of Agreement No.6/D.L./2010-11. Copy of the agreement has been filed as Annexure P-5. 3. Shri Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reassignment of the contract by using Clause 3 of the agreement is not in accordance with law, as the action is arbitrary and mala fide. -^. ^ ;?-... ^ He submits that after passing of the reassignment order on 15-7- 2011, the petitioner has moved an application before the Superintending Engineer on 26-7-2011 , but the same has not been decided till date. 4. Shri Deo, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents takes preliminary objection relating to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement vide Clause 28. 5. Admittedly, vide Clause 28 of the agreement, there is an arbitration clause. According to which, firstly, an application has to be made to the Superintending Engineerjor his decision^within 30 days of an occurrence referred to in the clause and thereupon further remedies have been described. Shri Jha has submitted that the petitioner has already made an application to the Superintending Engineer as per Clause 28 on 26-7-2011. 6. In view of the above admitted position in the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage. The writ petition, therefore, is disposed of at this stage. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue the application filed by it before the Superintending Engineer and also to pursue further remedies available under Clause 28 of the agreement. Certified copy as per rules. Gopal Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge