Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010216142025 2025:GAU-AS:13124 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5584/2025 FAKRUL ISLAM SO. LATE JALAN UDDIN, RO. GADARUAKHINI, P.O. MULLAGANJ, P.S. PATHARKANDI, DISTRICT SREEBHUMI, ASSAM. PIN CODE 788719 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. THROUGHTHE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PWD (BUILDING AND NH), DISPUR,GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE SPECIAL CHIEF ENGINEER PWD BUILDING ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD SILCHAR BUILDING CIRCLE SILCHAR P.O. SILCHAR 788001 DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD LAKHIPUR BORKHOLA AND KATIPORAH TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVISION SILCHAR P.O. SILCHAR PIN CODE 788001 Page No.# 2/4 DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM. 5:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD LAKHIPUR TERRITORIAL BUILDING SUB DIVISION LAKHIPUR P.O. LAKHIPUR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN CODE 78810 For the petitioner (s) : Mr. R. Mazumdar, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. P. Nayak, AAG BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 22.09.2025 Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. The petitioner herein has assailed the notice for termination of the contract dated 07.08.2025 whereby the petitioner’s contract for the work “Construction of Jagannath Community cum Skill Center at (i) Labac T.E. (ii) Thalloo T.E. under Lakhipur LAC” was terminated. The grounds and reasons stated for Page No.# 3/4 termination of the contract are that the petitioner has violated Clause 59.2 (b) of the General Conditions of the Contract as well as also the Clause 59.1 of the said General Conditions of the Contract. It is also apparent from the reasons so cited in the notice for termination that there was a complete stoppage of work for 358 days without any prior permission or justification. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not carry out the said work on account of the site not being made available and further there were certain difficulties beyond the control of the petitioner on the home front. 4. This Court duly takes note of Clause 20 of the Special Conditions of Contract which stipulates that in case of dispute or differences arising between the employer and the domestic contractor relating to any matter arising out of or connected with the agreement, such dispute shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 5. Taking into account that the issues which have been raised in the instant writ petition which require adjudication on pure questions of facts, which in opinion of this Court, the Arbitral Tribunal would be best suited to do in terms with Clause 20 of the Special Conditions of Contract, this Court is not inclined to Page No.# 4/4 entertain the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 6. It is however categorically observed that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievances in terms with Clause 20 of the Special Conditions of the Contract. Further to that, the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner in such arbitration proceedings. JUDGE Comparing Assistant