WP(C) 544/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. T. Islam, learned Central Govt. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the res pondent No.1. Also heard Mr. PC Deka, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behal f of the remaining respondents. The petitioner’s basic grievance is, in brief, thus: Notwithstanding the fact th at the petitioner has completed the work, which had been allotted to him, the re spondents have, on 01.02.2008, published the impugned notice inviting tender (in short’ ’the NIT’) (Annexure 10 to the writ petition), whereby tenders have been invited in respect of the works, which were allotted to the petitioner and have already completed by the petitioner. If the respondents are allowed to proceed with the NIT, the amount(s), payable for the works, which may be done by a perso n pursuant to the grant of the contract, would be recovered from the petitioner, though the petitioner is not liable to make such payment inasmuch as the petiti oner has already completed the work(s), which were allotted to the petitioner. H ence, the respondents cannot deduct any amount(s), which they may be required to pay to the person(s), who may be selected pursuant to the NIT aforementioned. With the case so presented, the petitioner has sought for issuance of appropriat e Writ(s) setting aside the impugned NIT. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner has also sought for appropriate directions from this Court stayi ng the operation of the impugned NIT. During the course of motion-hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this C ourt that all disputes and differences, arising between the parties concerned, a re referable to arbitration in terms of the contract agreement and, hence, this writ petition is not maintainable, for, the petitioner, according to the respond ents, has not completed the work(s) allotted to him. Coupled with the above, it is also worth noticing that the question as to whethe r the petitioner has or has not completed the work in terms of the work order(s) is a question of fact and since it is vehemently denied by the respondents that the petitioner has completed the work(s), in terms of the requirements of the c ontract agreement, this writ proceeding is not an appropriate proceeding for res olution of such disputed questions of fact. In other words, the question as to w hether the petitioner has or has not completed the work(s) and/or the question a s to whether the respondents were justified in floating the impugned NIT, dated 01.02.2008, aforementioned, are questions, which can be dealt with in an arbit ration proceeding. During the course of motion-hearing, Mr. Chaliha has, however, pointed out that Clause 110.1 (a & b) of the Contract Agreement stipulates that before referring the matter to arbitration, endeavours shall be made by the parties to amicably s ettle the matter. In view of the fact that the contract agreement between the parties stipulates a rbitration, the petitioner may take necessary steps to get the matter referred t o arbitration or to get the matter settled by resorting to Clause 110.1 (a & b). Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justic e, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty given to the petitioner to app ly to the respondents/authorities concerned for making amicable settlement of th e disputes or differences, which have been arisen between the parties. If the pe titioner makes any such application, the respondents shall deal with the same in terms of the contract agreement and in accordance with law. If the petitioner f eels aggrieved by any of the action(s) and/or order(s), which may be passed by t he respondents/authorities concerned, or by the decision(s), which may be taken by the respondents/authorities concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed o f. No order as to costs.