THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.14231 of 2003 ORDER: 1 In this Writ Petition, petitioner who is a Class-I Contractor, has questioned the proceedings of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (a Government of India Enterprise) issued in Lr.No.N2/Work Orders/Zone-XI/02-03/21, dated 04.07.2003. 2 Petitioner was awarded contract for laying underground cable laying and allied works in Zone Xi i.e. in Kadiri and Tanakallu SDCAs of Anantapur telecom district during the year 2002-03. Work orders were issued at different points of time with reference to six works under different exchanges of Zone XI in Ananthapur Teleccom District. On the ground that the works were not completed as per tender conditions and the agreement, the impugned order was passed terminating his contract as per Clause 75 of the Tender Schedule and agreement by forfeiting the deposit. 3 After filing of the Writ Petition, though the petitioner had filed an application seeking suspension of the impugned proceedings, this Court rejected the said application. 4 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that the agreement was only for the works, which are to be executed during the year 2002-03 and that the works were already executed by other contractor. It is submitted that as per the terms of the agreement, there is a clause for arbitration ion case of any dispute. 5 In this Writ Petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay occurred, in executing the work as per the time schedule, is on account of various aspects, which are attributable only to the department and he is not responsible for it. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner in spite of time schedule given for completion of the work, violated the tender conditions and had not executed the work as per the time frame stipulations. 6 From the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that there are disputes between the parties, which arise on account of not executing the works in time. Though the petitioner is contending that the delay was on account of the steps taken by the respondents themselves, on the other hand, the respondents plead that the petitioner has violated the tender conditions. In view of the factual disputes between the parties, it is not possible for this court to record a finding in this Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. In any event, it is to be noticed that works were notified only for the year 2002-03 and as it is also not in dispute that there is an arbitration clause provided as per the agreement, in the event of any disputes arising between the parties, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition for granting any relief at this point of time. 7 Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is intending to invoke the arbitration clause, it is open for him to take such steps available under law and as per the terms of the agreement. No order as to costs. -------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 22.12.2011 Kvsn