WP(C) 2933/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S. Samaria, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. I. Chokraborty, learned Standing counsel, PWD. The petitioner is aggrieved by termination of the particular contract vide order dated 01.03.2010. It is submitted that the particular dispute raised by the pet itioner can be agitated before the Dispute Redressal System. In this connection, learned counsel for the parties have referred to clause 24 of the contract agre ement. As per the said clause, if any dispute or difference of any kind arises i n respect of the contract including the termination of the contract, same is ref erable to the competent authority. In the said clause whereas the competent auth ority decides the dispute, either party will have the right to appeal against th e decision of the competent authority to the Standing Empowered Committee. Learn ed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will prefer an appeal to which Mr. I. Chodhury, learned Standing counsel, PWD does not have any object ion. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of providing that the petitioner may pursue the remedy available in Clause 24.2 of the Contract agreement. Needless t o say that if the either party feels aggrieved by any decision of the authority, it will be open for them to pursue the legal remedy as may be available to them .