Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010158632026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4054/2026 SILICON TECHLABS PVT. LTD. 01, INCUBATION CENTRE, SILICON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SILICON HILLS, PATIA, BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA-751024 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SRI RASMI RANJAN SWAIN, S/O SRI RAMESH CHANDRA SWAIN, R/O NEAR KUMUTI GARDEN, ABAKASH LANE, SADAR PURI ODISHA-752002. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, SKILL EMPLOYMENTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, BLOCK-I, 3RD FLOOR, JATANA BHAWAN, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:ASSAM SKILL UNIVERSITY PROJECT 3RD FLOOR DECT OFFICE COMPLEX REHABARI GUWAHATI- 781008 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ASSAM SKILL UNIVERSITY 3RD FLOOR DECT OFFICE COMPLEX REHABARI GUWAHATI-781008 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D DEKA, MR A KAKOTI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 31.07.2026 Heard Shri D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. R. Baruah, learned State Counsel. Considering the facts and circumstances, notice is not required to be issued to the rest of the respondents. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was entrusted with the work of Design, Development, Implementation and maintenance of ASU Digital Campus for IT-01 in connection with which, a Contract Agreement dated 11.03.2025 was executed. The petitioner is however aggrieved by an order dated 04.05.2026 issued by the respondent University by which, the contract has been terminated. During the course of deliberation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that there is an arbitration clause. He has however submitted that apart from challenging the order of termination, the petitioner also has some interim prayers. Shri Baruah, the learned State Counsel has submitted that in view of the arbitration clause, this petition is not liable to be entertained. This Court is of the opinion that the parties had agreed to a Dispute Redressal Mechanism by way of arbitration. It is also not in dispute that under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate Court for interim relief pre initiation of the arbitration. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would invoke the arbitration clause and also approach the appropriate Court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. However, he submits that for a limited Page No.# 3/3 period, a direction may be issued not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is closed by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 in accordance with law. It is further provided that if such approach is made on or before 10.08.2026, no coercive action be taken till the said date. It is needless to state that the learned Court if approached would pass appropriate order(s) strictly in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant