Judgment · High Court

Heard Ms. G. Sutradhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged legality and val idity of notice dated 03.05.1999 whereby petitioner was informed by the responde nts that following termination of contract, penalty has been assessed at Rs. 3,0 9,345/- and the petitioner was asked to deposit the said amount, failing which, it was stated that the said amount would be deducted from the outstanding dues. Petitioner has further challenged subsequent notice dated 25.08.2003 whereby it was stated that an amount of Rs.1,17,560/- is recoverable from the outstanding d ues of the petitioner, being the penalty amount. Petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondents for face lifting of railway station building at Dimapur. Because of various reasons, details of whi ch may not be necessary, the contract was terminated on 01.01.1990 in exercise o f powers under Clause 62 (1) and (2) of the general conditions of contract on ri sk and cost basis. Long thereafter, the impugned notice was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in case of a simi lar challenge to recovery of penalty amount at risk and cost of the contractor, this Court vide judgment and order dated 09.03.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 4184/199 9 had declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that disputed questi ons of fact were involved and as per contract agreement, such dispute could be s ettled by way of arbitration. In view of above, this writ petition is also dismissed as not maintainab le. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to seek arbitration as per the contr act agreement in accordance with law.