@3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATT‘SGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma, JJ. Writ Petition (C) No.7135l2011 Jagatpal Singh, S/o. .Shri Harnarayan Singh, aged about 61 ‘ years, Prop. M/s. Jagatpa! Singh (A-5 Contractor) R/o. T45, Adarsh Négar, Durg, Dis'tt. Durg (CG) Petitioner Vs. Respondents 1. State ofChhattisgarh Through the Secretary Tribal ‘Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 2. Additional Commissioner, Tribai Department, Development Collector Building, Durg, distt. Durg (CG) Lg Executive Engineer, Rural Engineer Service, Durg, Distt. Durg (CG) Writ Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Shri ,HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri JK Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents, on advance copy. Present: ti O R A L O R D E R (Passed on 30‘“ November, 201 1) Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner was, awarded contract for construction of 500 bedded boys hostel for Tribal Science DevelopmentCenter, Durg. {'An agreement dated 28.7.2011 was executed between the petitioner and the authorities of the State. By orders dated 21.9.2011 (Annxure-P/7), and 01 .102011 (Annexure—P/9), it was informed that K/ 2 w.P.(C)No.7135/2011 a the place of construction has been changed by the Government and now the hostel is to be constructed in Jagdalpur. By further order dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure—P/11), the petitioner was directed to deposit the mobiiization advance. The petitioner has chailenged the " vaiidity of the above three orders. 3. Shri Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that major part of the mobilization amount has ' already been utilized by the petitioner, therefore, the orders impugned, particularly order dated 17.11.2011 (Annxure-PI11 ar unjustified and the petitioner cannot be directed to deposit the bilization amount in the above__manner, because, the place of construction has been changed on account of the decision of the Goernment. v 4. Perusal of the agreement would show that there is arbitration clause in the agreement vid Clause No.28. In light of the above arration clause in the agreement, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain this writ petition as disputed questions‘of facts relang to utiliZation of mobilization amount have to be decided. 5. We, therefe, decline to entertain this writ petition in light of the arbitration clause in the agreement. The wrt petition, therefore is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy of arbitration or any other remedy, which may be available to him under the law. t \i Sd/- R.S.Sharma ’ Judge uniiKuma' 1 sdl— Smha t s ud e: Bini ) e mo e bit ti or i ,