Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010013662017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1055/2017 SOIDUR RAHMAN S/O. NAJIRUDDIN AHMED R/O. FOUZDARY PATTY P.O. NAGAON P.S. SADAR NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. ROADS DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. PMGSY WORKS ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. ROADS ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3. 4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. Page No.# 2/5 NAGAON NAGAON ROADS CIRCLE NAGAON ASSAM. 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. PMGSY NAGAON STATE ROAD DIVISION NAGAON. ------------ Advocate for : MR.J ISLAM Advocate for : MR. T C CHUTIA (GA ASSAM) appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 16-10-2025 1. Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the PWD. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the contract was terminated by the respondents, due to the petitioner informing the respondent PWD that he could not continue with the contract, due to ill health. The security deposit and performance security has been forfeited. The petitioner thus prays for refund of the security deposit and performance security forfeited by him. 3. A perusal of the contract agreement shows that the petitioner could have availed of the Dispute Redressal System or the Arbitration Clause provided in Clause 24 & 25 of the General Clauses of Contract (GCC) for redressal of his grievance. Further, Clause 52 provides for termination of a contract for fundamental breach of the contract. Page No.# 3/5 4. The termination of the contract awarded to the petitioner and forfeiture of the security deposit and performance security, was due to the petitioner not completing the contract work, which amounted to a fundamental breach of the contract. It is the case of the petitioner that due to his ill health, the petitioner could not complete the contract work and he had requested the authorities to appoint someone else to complete the contract work. On the other hand, it is the case of the State respondents that despite numerous chances being given to the petitioner to complete his contract work, the petitioner could not complete his contract work and the same led to termination of the contract work, as well as forfeiture of the performance security and retention money. The further stand of the State respondents is that the petitioner’s contract work was terminated on 23.09.2016, while the petitioner had informed the respondents that he was ill and could not complete the contract work only on 03.10.2016, i.e., after the termination of his contract work by the respondents. 5. On a perusal of the documents on record, it is seen that the petitioner was allotted the Construction of Road from Dakhinpat Kampur Road to Borkula Pachim (Dakhinpat Kampur Road to Pachim Bakelagaon Road) under Package No.AS-19-292. 6. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner started the work in time, however he failed to achieve proportionate progress and also failed to achieve the targeted milestone. 7. As there was repeated failure on the part of the petitioner to achieve the targeted work, contract of the petitioner has been terminated for the following reasons : Page No.# 4/5 (i)The work was held up for more than 28 days at a stretch (From March/16 to Oct/16) (ii) After passing the total completion period allowed including extended time, you failed to show required progress of the work. Progress till date is only 30%. So, you failed the milestone. (iii) The work involved is of public interest in nature and very much important for overall growth of economy of the State and poverty alleviation. Your inaction hurt such feelings. (iv) Due to your act of omission, commission and negligence, which are in violation of provision of contract, the department has suffered much due to cost and time overturn and caused great inconvenience to general public. (v) You have written your inability to proceed with the work in view of your health condition. 8. As can be seen from the above facts and the documents on record, the petitioner’s contract work has been terminated due to the petitioner not being able to complete his contract work, despite various letters issued to him to complete the work. Also the petitioner was not willing to continue with the contract work. 9. As the petitioner’s prayer in the present writ petition is for a direction for payment of money which can be agitated under Clause 24 & 25 of the GCC, this Court is of the view that the petitioner would have to avail the efficacious alternative remedy available for his claim. Accordingly, this Court is of the view Page No.# 5/5 that the present writ petition is not maintainable, due to an alternative remedy being available to the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance in terms of Clause 24 & 25 of the GCC, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant