JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. R. P. Sarmah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. A. K. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Union of India; Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the PWD and Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.10 in WP(C) No.4781/2022 and WP(C) No.4846/2022. 2. The Petitioner has filed this present batch of four writ petitions. In WP(C) No.4781/2022, the writ Petitioner has challenged the termination order issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tezpur, Sootea and Rangapara Territorial Road Division, Tezpur thereby terminating the contract issued in favour of the Petitioner for construction of the road from “MRL06-Amloga Molangaon Dolongbasti via Cotton Mill including Cross Drainage Work and Routine Maintenance for five years in Sonitpur District under PMGSY-III, 2020-21, Batch 1, Package No.AS-22-679” and further seeking a direction that the Respondent Authorities should grant an extension to the Petitioner for a period of nine months. 3. The writ petition upon being filed, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had issued notice, but the interim order which was sought for was not granted. 4. The second writ petition which was filed by the Petitioner is WP(C) No.4846/2022 whereby the Petitioner assailed the impugned final Notice dated 13.07.2022 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tezpur, Sootea and Rangapara Territorial Road Division and asking the Petitioner to start the said work within five days from the date of issue of the letter or else the work would be withdrawn from the Petitioner for re-allotment to other agency at the Petitioner's risk and cost. The termination of the Petitioner's work vide the termination order dated 19.07.2022, in the opinion of this Court has rendered WP(C) No.4846/2022 infructuous. 5. The Petitioner thereupon filed the third writ petition being WP(C) No.695/2023 assailing the Tender Notice dated 20.01.2023 and the E-Procurement Notice dated 21.01.2023 issued by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Sonitpur and Biswanath for the construction of the roads and CD works under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana, PMGSY-III for 2020-21 Batch-1 for one package, i.e. the balance work in the district of Sonitpur with an estimated cost of Rs.253.05 lakhs including routine maintenance for five years from the approved and eligible contractor. The said writ petition upon being filed, this Court had issued notice, but there was no interim order passed. 6. Be that as it may, there was an observation that any decision so taken shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 7. The writ petition being WP(C) No.719/2024 was filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned Notice to proceed with the construction of the work pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender which was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No.695/2023. It is relevant to take note that the construction work which was allotted to the Respondent No.8 has already been completed in the meantime. 8. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the interference in exercise of powers of judicial review in respect to the subject matter in WP(C) No.695/2023 and WP(C) No.719/2024 does not arise. 9. Be that as it may, as regards the termination of the contract of the Petitioner which is the subject matter in WP(C) No.4781/2022, it is the opinion of this Court that as the work in question has been re-tendered and completed, no direction can be passed in the instant proceedings save and except that the Petitioner be given an opportunity to avail remedies before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction in respect to any claim for breach of contract, if so advised. 10. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the four writ petitions with the following observations and directions: (i) WP(C) No.4846/2022; WP(C) No.719/2024 and WP(C) No.695/2023 are dismissed. (ii) WP(C) No.4781/2022 is also dismissed for the reason that this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot adjudicate the legality and validity of the termination order in as much as the same would involve adjudication of various factual disputes on the question of alleged breach of the terms and conditions of the contract. (iii) This Court observes that as the Petitioner has been bonafidely and diligently pursuing his remedy in WP(C) No.4781/2022, it is observed that the dismissal of the writ petition being WP(C) No.4781/2022 shall not prejudice the Petitioner to avail remedies before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction and the period during which the writ petition being WP(C) No.4781/2022 has been pending before this Court, i.e. from 22.07.2022 till date, be excluded while computing the period of limitation.