WP(C) 5822/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. G. Uzir, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Medhi, learn ed counsel for the petitioner as well Ms. U. Chokraborty, learned counsel for th e Railway. This writ petition has been filed assailing the validity and legality of Annexur e-J letter dated 26.10.06 issued by the General Manager, Northeast Frontier Rail way (Con) under the signature of Chief Engineer(Con), N.F. Railway, Maligaon res cinding the order of work assigned to the petitioner vide order No. CON/ROB/Ramp ur/203 dated 16.06.06 w.e.f. 18.10.06. The contract is rescinded invoking clause 62 of the General Conditions of Contract, 1998. By the impugned communication i t has also been intimated that the balance work in respect of the contract will be executed at the risk and cost of the petitioner. On perusal of Annexure-J order dated 26.10.06, it appears that 7 days notice an d 48 hours notice as contemplated under the terms of the contract were issued to the petitioner and it was upon his purported failure to make good the default in respect of the work, contract has been rescinded at the risk and cost of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the contract has been terminated in a most illegal manner. It is the case of the petitioner that since it was made to carry on the work debarring it from using OPC-53 grade Shakti cement and the respondents insi sted upon making use of other brand of cement, the work had suffered and consequ ently there was violation of the terms and conditions of the contract agreement. The respondents have filed their counter denying the plea raised by the petition er. They have also raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition i n view of the availability of the Arbitration clause in the contract agreement. It has been stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned communica tion, it will be open for it to invoke the Arbitration clause. They have referre d to Clause 64 of the G.C.C. forming part of the contract agreement. It has been held in a number of cases that if there is Arbitration clause relat ing to terms and conditions of any contract, it is always advisable to raise the dispute before the authority so that the matter may be referred to the arbitrat or. Further, disputed question of fact as has been raised in the writ petition, cannot be gone into by exercising the power of judicial review under Article 2 26 of the Constitution of India. Since, there is an Arbitration clause in the A rbitration Agreement, it will be open for the petitioner to raise the dispute be fore the respondents so as to refer the same to the Arbitrator. It is true that the respondents shall also be entitled to refuse reference to the Arbitrator if the dispute comes within the excepted matter. However, this aspect of the matte r has not been gone into. As per the affidavit filed by the respondents since th ere is Arbitration Clause, the petitioner will be entitled to raise his dispute for a reference to the Arbitrator. In view of the above, I dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to petitione r to raise the related dispute before the authority who in turn may decide for reference to the Arbitrator in terms of the conditions in the contract. It wil l be open for the petitioner to make a prayer before the authority and the Arbit rator for interim relief. Writ petition is disposed of. Interim order passed on 24.11.06 stands vacated.