Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010232582025 2025:GAU-AS:14739 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6166/2025 M/S D.C. AJMERA, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY, NAMELY MR. SANJIB KUMAR NATH, S/O SATYA RANJAN NATH, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, HOTEL PRATIBHA EXECUTIVE, OPP. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, OSMANABAD 413501 AND SITE PROJECT OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 21, MONALISHA PATH, GITANAGAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVT. OF INDIA, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, , PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NHIDCL 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR TOWER A WORLD TRADE CENTRE NAUROJI NAGAR NEW DELHI 110029 3:THE REGIONAL OFFICER NHAI REGIONAL OFFICE NEDFI HOUSE 4TH FLOOR Page No.# 2/3 G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 ASSAM. 4:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA P. PIU HAFLONG OPPOSITE DSA COMPLEX HAFLONG 788819 ASSAM. 5:THE TEAM LEADER M/S MSV INTERNATIONAL INC 6:THE RESIDENT ENGINEER M/S MSV INTERNATIONAL IN For the petitioner (s) : Mr. T. Baruah, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. C. Baruah, SC, NHAI BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 31.10.2025 Heard Mr. T. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. C. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NHAI as well as the NHIDC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking into account that there is an arbitration clause, being Clause 25 in the Conditions of the Contract, and the petitioner’s main Page No.# 3/3 grievance is the non-referral of the dispute to arbitration, the petitioner would be well advised to file an appropriate application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that with respect to the relief sought for pertaining to interim directions, the same can also be duly agitated in terms with Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner therefore submitted that the petitioner would not like to proceed with the writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail of the effective remedies. 3. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. 4. It is made clear that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall not affect the right of the petitioner to avail of remedies otherwise available under law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant