Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010278482024 2025:GAU-AS:2185 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./1/2025 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE, E-IN-C BRANCH INTERGRATED HQ OF MOD KASHMIR HOUSE, RAJAJI MARG, NEW DELHI 110011 2: HQ CHIEF ENGINEER SILIGURI ZONE MES SEVOKE ROAD P.O.-SALUGARA WEST BENGAL 734008 3: CWE TENGA ARUNACHAL PRADESH CWE TENGA ARUNACHAL PRADESH 790116 4: GE TENGA ARUNACHAL PRADESH CWE TENGA ARUNACHAL PRADESH 79011 VERSUS B B ELECTRICALS 397, 3RD FLOOR, C ROAD SADARPUR, JODHPUR 342003 RAJASTHAN, REPRESENTED BY ESTAQUE ALI AHMED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE ABDUL HAMID MONDAL, R/O SHAIL KANDA, JALESWAR, LAKHIPUR, GOALPARA ASSAM, PIN 783132 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K PARASAR, Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 03-03-2025 Heard Mr. KK Parasar, learned counsel for the review petitioners, who submits that the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 986/2023 should be reviewed by modifying the said order. 2. The review petitioners’ counsel submits that this Court, vide the impugned order dated 01.10.2024, had directed the review petitioners to pay to the writ petitioner the admitted amount of Rs.25,65,968.66/-, on the ground of unpaid contractual bills for completing the contract works namely, CA NO: CESZ/TENGA 21 OF 2017/18: SPECIAL REPAIR/ADDAN AND ALTTN TO OFFICERS MD ACCN IN TENGA. 3. The review petitioners’ counsel submits that at the time of disposal of WP(C) 986/2023 vide order dated 01.10.2024, the review petitioners had inadvertently forgot to produce the General Conditions of Contracts No. 67, wherein any money payable by the contractor with regard to any contract, other than the contract which the writ petitioner (contractor) was working on, was liable to be paid to the review petitioners. He submits that the petitioner had been allotted another contract work vide Contract Agreement No. CWE/TEZ(859)/02 of 2018-2019, which was terminated due to the fault of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was thereafter liable to pay to the review Page No.# 3/4 petitioners’ a sum of Rs.37,86,601.40/- as risk and cost amount, in respect of the Contract Agreement CWE/TEZ(859)/02 of 2018-2019. He submits that as per the term No. 67 of the General Conditions of Contracts, the writ petitioner can be paid the admitted amount of Rs.25,65,968.66/- in terms of the Contract Agreement No. CESZ/TENGA 21 OF 2017/18: SPECIAL REPAIR/ADDAN AND ALTTN TO OFFICERS MD ACCN IN TENGA, if the petitioner pays the risk and cost amount of Rs.37,86,601.40/-, in pursuance to the terminated Contract Agreement No. CWE/TEZ(859)/02 of 2018-2019. 4. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, the writ petitioner appearing-in-person submits that the risk and cost amount claimed by the review petitioners in respect of the Contract Agreement CWE/TEZ(859)/02 of 2018-2019 is a disputed amount and the said issue is to be decided by the learned Arbitrator. As such, the review petitioners do not have any right to claim the said amount by way of this review petition. 5. Mr. KK Parasar, learned counsel for the review petitioners agrees that the issue of payment of the risk and cost amount of Rs.37,86,601.40/- pertaining to the terminated Contract Agreement is at present pending adjudication before the Arbitrator, in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 6. On considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, it is clear that the issue whether the writ petitioner is liable to pay the review petitioners the risk and cost amount of Rs.37,86,601.40/- in terms of the terminated Contract Agreement No. CWE/TEZ(859)/02 of 2018-2019, is a disputed question of fact, which is still to be decided by the learned Arbitrator. As such, no case for review has been made out by the review petitioners. Page No.# 4/4 7. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant