Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010013662017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1051/2017 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 DEPARTMENT NAGAON NAGAON ROAD CIRCLE NAGAON ASSAM. Page No.# 2/5 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. MORIGAON STATE ROAD DIVISION MORIGAON Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.T MOHAMMAD, MR. R A CHOUDHURY,MR.J ISLAM,MR A S TAPADAR,MR. D HUSSAIN,MS C M DEKA,MS. M BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S R BORUAH (GA, ASSAM), SC, PWD 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. 4. The termination of the contract awarded to the petitioner and forfeiture of Page No.# 3/5 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 Rangadaria to Dighalipathar L=2.21 Km including cross drainage and routine maintenance works for 5 years under PMSGY RCIP, ADB Batch-II, 2013-14, Package no AS-1799 vide letter no W.O.1/05/3349 dated 16.12.2015 and the time of construction of road was 1 year. 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, the following letters in the nature of notices were issued to Page No.# 4/5 expedite the progress of work. The letters issued are as follows: (1) Letter no Gen.46/2015/178 dated 17.10.2015; (ii) Letter no Com.144/15/2545 dated 01.02.2016; (iii) Letter no Com.144/15/2700 dated 12.02.2016. 8. Thereafter, as there was no response, the office of the deponent issued letter no Com.144/15/2879 dated 08.03.2016 stating that the petitioner had not taken any initiative to expedite the work in spite of repeated verbal as well as written communication. Further, by the said letter the petitioner was requested to improve his progress of work within 7 days of receipt of the letter and the same be treated as FINAL NOTICE, otherwise the department would have to invoke Clause 52 of the tender agreement. The said notice was duly received by the Petitioner on 08.06.2016. 9. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a work programme for completion and monitoring of the work. But such assurance was not acted upon. As a result, in public interest the work was terminated vide letter no Com.144/15/1291 dated 23.09.2016 and the said work completed through another agency. Further, the authority requested the petitioner to be on site on 05.10.2016 for taking the final measurement. 10. In response to the letter dated 23.09.2016, the petitioner submitted an application dated 03.10.2016 stating his inability to attend the site on 05.10.2016 due to ill health and doctor's advice for rest. By the said letter, the Page No.# 5/5 petitioner also expressed that he would be unable to execute the work and the same be given to another agency, as mentioned by the department in its letter dated 23.09.2016. 11. 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. 12. 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. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as there is an alternative remedy available, which can be pursued. 13. 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