1 2026:CGHC:1797-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 87 of 2026 M/s. Anil Buildcon (India) Private Limited (C I N - U 45200 C T 2011 P T C 022277), 104, Lovina Courts, Mungeli Naka, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Email- Accbilaspur @Gamil.Com Through Its Authorised Director Mr. Anil Kumar Verma S/o Late Jagdish Verma, Aged About 66 Years, R/o House No. 14 / 1152, Talapara Road, Vinoba Nagar, Tahsil And Ditrict-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya (New Secretariat), Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division No. 2, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate along with Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 12/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.24 14:24:31 +0530 2 order dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P/1), issued by the respondent No.3, whereby the respondent authorities denied to release the earnest money deposit and security deposit/performance security, and prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in calling the entire Measurement Books & other records pertaining to the subject matter. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned decision vide letter dated 29.08.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD Division No.2, Bilaspur (C.G.). 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to foreclose the work and release the remaining payments of the petitioner under running bills for the work already executed with the commercial interest @24% per anum and also for releasing the Earnest Money Deposit and Security Deposit Performance Security with commercial interest @24% per anum. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may please direct the respondents to pay damages & compensation for the unreasonable delay and also for delay issuing the Work Completion Certificate to release the petitioner's bidding capacity enabling the petitioner to participate in the other tenders related with work contracts. 10.5 This Hon’ble Court may please direct a detailed enquiry with regard to the impugned decision vide letter dated 29.08.2024 issued by the Executive 3 Engineer, PWD Division No.2, Bilaspur (C.G.) containing false claim of the respondents only intended to fill the voids, avoid the liabilities under Contempt Petition (C) No.709 of 2024 & to harass & deprive the petitioners from their righteous claims. 10.6. This Hon'ble court may please be kind enough in granting the cost and any other relief to the petitioner.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was awarded the work under the work agreement No. 10/DL/2017-18 for construction of Global Category Full Standard (size 400 M x 8 Lane) Synthetic Athletic Track [International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) approved class-II category] and Natural Grass Football Ground at State Sports Training Centre, Outdoor Stadium, Bahatarai, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The total cost of the work was 885.33 lakhs and the completion period was 9 months from the date of work order. After completion of initial work, some impediments occurred due to delay in issuance of custom duty exemption certificate and difficulties in import of “Rekortan M-99 Synthetic track” from Germany, which resulted in huge financial repercussions to the petitioner. Various cultural and public events on the stadium premises are also one of the ground for delay in completion of the work. The respondent authorities have also informed the petitioner about the non-availability of revised administrative sanction and funds. For want of necessary funds, the running bills of the petitioner for the work, which was already executed, have also not been paid to him. Despite non-payment of the running bills, the petitioner continued to work. The petitioner repeatedly requested the 4 respondent authorities by oral and written communications for release of the pending payments forcing him to issue a legal notice on 14.09.2022 demanding the payments of dues. Since, the pending dues were not paid to the petitioner, he filed a writ petition bearing WPC No. 252 of 2023 for seeking a direction to release the undisputed dues. The said writ petition was disposed of on 31.10.2023 directing the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner’s representation for payment of running bills. Despite the direction, the petitioner kept silent over the issue and then after issuing another notice on 12.04.2024, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition (C) No. 709 of 2024. During the hearing of the said contempt petition, the respondents had submitted that, the representation of the petitioner has been decided on 29.08.2024 and then the contempt petition was disposed of on 30.08.2024. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that, vide letter dated 29.08.2024, the respondent authorities have wrongly informed the petitioner that, the work agreement No. 10/DL/2017-18 still subsists and the petitioner has to perform the remaining work and without completing the remaining work, the return of security deposit, performance deposit and work completion certificate is not possible. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 04.09.2024 by placing the details of executed work, payments made and financial losses incurred due to the department lapses including the payment of custom and IGST duty of Rs. 92,47,226/-, demurrage detention and CFS charges. The petitioner has further submitted his reminder representations on 17.09.2024, 01.12.2024, 09.01.2025 and 13.02.2025, but all his efforts went in 5 vain. The failure to issue work completion certificate and withholding the legitimate dues are the arbitrary and mala fide action on the part of the respondent authorities and the huge capital of the petitioner has been blocked, therefore, he filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the work order was issued in the year 2017 and due to the lapses on the part of the respondent authorities, the work could not be concluded. The work agreement has already been expired, because of the lethargy on the part of the respondents/department and the petitioner cannot be compelled to resume the work under the agreement. The respondent authorities have failed to consider the verified quantities of work executed. The petitioner had categorically pointed towards the requirement of importing the athletic track in the name of Executive Engineer (PWD) and the liability to arrange the custom duty exemption and IGST payments, which was the liability of the department under clause 9.2 of the agreement. Due to lapse of the authorities, the Astro Turf was dumped at the custom clearance and no one come forward to get it released after payment of relevant taxes. The said Astro Turf was required to be imported from the IAAF. After lapse of longtime, the quality cannot be maintained and guarantee cannot be provided. The impugned order dated 29.08.2024 violates the principles of natural justice and fairness and the petitioner cannot be compelled to resume the work under the work agreement No. 10/DL/2017-18. By the impugned order dated 29.08.2024, the bidding capacity of the petitioner is blocked and he is facing huge financial crises by retaining his amount by the respondent authorities under the work contract. The 6 grievance of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent authorities despite making repeated representations, therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to foreclose the work agreement, issue the work completion certificate, so that the petitioner may participate in other tenders and also to release the remaining payments under the running bills for the work already executed by quashing the order dated 29.08.2024. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that, clause 11 of the work agreement would provide that the payments can be made only after administrative clearance. In the agreement, it has specifically provided that the payment will be done only after completion activity and the activities have been categorized stage-by-stage. A large number of work is required to be performed by the petitioner, which is still not performed. On 21.08.2024, the administrative sanction was issued by the State Government and in the impugned order also the administrative sanction dated 21.08.2024 have been disclosed and said by the respondents that, the work agreement No. 10/DL/2017-18 is still subsists. Since, the work has not been completed and therefore, payments have not been made, and the petitioner may complete the work and receive his payment. Since, the petitioner had to purchase the advance machinery and other articles from abroad and for that, he has to pay custom duty and other taxes, etc. the department has paid advance amount to him subject to adjustment against the work done by him under the contract. In the impugned order dated 29.08.2024, the payment details have been 7 made. It is not that the State is compelling the petitioner for the work and they have not debarred the petitioner from his bidding capacity. The petitioner had to challenge the administrative sanction dated 21.08.2024, but he did not challenge it. He would further submit that, the petitioner is claiming the damages and compensation, for which he is having an alternative remedy, even the petitioner can very well invoke the arbitration clause, which is provide under clause 16 of the work agreement, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. It is the settled law that, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when it raises disputed questions of facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Subhash Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam and others” 2021 SCC Online SC 562, has held in para 26 that:- “26. Moreover, the High Court has overlooked the Notes and Limitations mentioned in the report of Shetgiri and Associates, set out hereinbelow: "(1) The report is based on visual inspection done as on date, of an accessible area and data provided by client and ND tests results. This report serves a basis of preliminary health heck-up of structure and should not be treated as stability certificate of the building. (2) *** 8 (3) Inspection of substructure was not possible and hence condition of structure below plinth cannot be commented on. (4) The observations made in structural audit report are made during the time of audit. We shall not be held responsible for any changes in structural condition and/or damages to the structure and/or overloading, at any point of time in case observed. (5) It is requested that the authority concerned must carry out regular maintenance of the structures, sewer lines & premises to avoid any further severe damage to the structure at a later stage. (6) *** (7) It is extremely important to add here that the structure is almost more than 45 years old and has majorly outlived its economic life. In olden days, especially in 1900's, the Indian Standard codes were basic in nature as compared with what is adopted in the present time. Even if the decision of restoration is adopted, uplifting the structure to an extent that it would be at par with modern structures in terms of the strength, design & safety standards and also the I.S. codal provisions especially seismic and wind analysis would be practically ruled-out and possible only if entire structural upliftment is carried out within each and every corner of 9 the structure, which is extremely difficult in case of repair works considering the massive repairs cost involved. Moreover, the foundations of the structure cannot be restored. (8) *** (9) The report is only limited to the captioned suit building and no other flat(s), building, structure or plot of land, premises, room, unit, site, area, division, subdivision or any other surrounding area of the plot or structure has been given any weightage or has been covered in the report. (10) The documents presented before us, if any, are considered while furnishing the said report as mentioned. However, the supporting underlying documents, which are not mentioned in our report and unknown to us, could not be examined or analysed. As such, our report is based only on the documents if any perused by us and not on any underlying supporting documents if any, not produced before us." 8. Subsequently, in the case of “Union of India v. Puna Hinda” 2021 (10) SCC 690, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 24 that:- “24. Permanent works to be executed under CA No. CE/VTK/03/2009-10 are as under: (a) R/Wall: R/Walls balance between Km 26.800 10 and Km 31.000 and provisioned between Km 31.000 and Km 40.000 at locations mentioned in Annexure-I to Appendix ‘B’ are recommended for execution on ground under CA No. CE/VTK/03/2009-10. (b) RCC Culverts: RCC Culverts balance between Km 26.800 and Km 31.000 including two incomplete RCC culverts at locations Km 28.300 and Km 29.000 and those provisioned between Km 31.000 and Km 47.850 at locations mentioned in Annexure-II to Appendix “B” are recommended for execution on ground under CA No. CE/VTK/03/2009-10. (c) T/Walls Below RCC Culverts: T/Walls below RCC Culverts balance between Km 26.800 and Km 31.000 and those provisioned between Km 31.000 and Km 47.850 at locations mentioned in Annexure-III to Appendix ‘B’ are recommended for execution on ground under CA No. CE/VTK/03/2009-10. (d) T/Walls below R/Walls: T/Walls below R/Walls provisioned between Km 26.800 to Km 31.000 and Km 31.000 to Km 47.850 at locations mentioned in Annexure IV to Appendix ‘B’ are recommended for execution on ground under CA No. CE/VTK/03/2009-10. (e) Breast Walls: Breast Walls provisioned between Km 26.800 to Km 31.000 and between Km 31.000 to Km 47.850 at locations mentioned 11 in Annexure V to Appendix ‘B’ are recommended for execution on ground under CA No. CE/VTK/03/2009-10. (f) Lined drain: Lined drain for 13271.00 Mtr length of trapezoidal shape in plum concrete between Km 26.800 and Km 47.850 at locations as arrived at after Joint Survey and mentioned at Annexure-VI to Appendix ‘B’ are recommended for execution on ground under CA No. CE/VTK/03/2009-10. (g) Road Furniture: Road furniture provisioned between Km 26.800 and Km 47.850 as per Annexure-VII to Appendix ‘B’ are recommended for providing/fixing on ground under CA No. CE/VTK/03/2009-10.” 9. Further, in the matter of “M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Limited” 2023 (2) SCC 703, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in its judgment that:- “82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in declining relief in a Writ Petition in a contractual matter. Again, the question as to whether the Writ Petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the petitioner, the questions, which would have to be decided, and, most importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no prohibition, in the Writ 12 Court even deciding disputed questions of fact, particularly when the dispute surrounds demystifying of documents only, the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil suit.” 10. A reading of the aforesaid judgments, makes it clear that it is well settled preposition of law that, when there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.3 and direction to release the remaining payments of running bills under the work agreement and also claimed the damages and compensation. The petitioner also claimed for an inquiry with respect to issuance of order dated 29.08.2024 by the respondent No.3. 11. Clause 11 of the work agreement provided the schedule of running payments, which is necessary to reproduce here:- “Clause: 11 Payment:- Schedule of running payment:- Schedule of running payment may be based on the following break up of the cost quoted in form-G subject to the stipulations of conditions of contract. S. No. Activity Details Percentag e of Total cost for payment Remarks 1 Excavation Constriction of Sub Grade, Granular Sub-brae, wet mix Macadam as per BOQ 7.00% Payment will be done only after completion of activity 2 Providing Prime coat, Tack coat, Bituminous Macadam and Bituminous concrete as per BOQ. 7.00% 13 3 Construction of R.C.C Drain with Concrete cover including reinforcement and paving around field Construction of Grossy Field Rest Area, Sump well, Pump House as per BOQ 12.00% 4 Supplying, Fitting, testing and commissioning of required capacity pump and Laying of Sprinkler system complete as per BOQ 3.00% 5 Providing and placing of Chain link fencing complete as per BOQ: 2.00% 6 Supplying & Laying Athletic track surface Full PUR type approved by IAAF as per BOQ. 55.00% 7 Any other work required to complete the Synthetic Athletic track surface as per IAAF norms. 9.00% 8 Payment after completion of performance/maintenance period 5.00% Note:- (1) Above activities are inclusive of all required test from departmental lab, IAAF accredited laboratory and field test. (2) Successful bidder must provide all the structural design and working drawings of work. (3) The sprinkler system, laid pipe lines, drainage system and Laying of turf must be checked and accepted by committee, before final payment of that activity. (4) Payment is done only after completion of activity. 11.1 Recovery at source:- As per rules the Income Tax, Commercial Tax, Labour welfare cess, form each running bill/final bill will be deducted at source as per rules. 11.2 Security Deposit @ 5% will be deducted from each running bill & it will be refunded after satisfactory completion of work and taken over by Director, Sports & Youth Welfare, Govt. of Chattisgarh. 11.3 The price quoted by the Contractor shall be deemed to be inclusive of all taxes i.e. sales/VAT tax and other levies, duties, royalties, cess, toll, taxes of central and State Governments. Local bodies and authorities that the contractor will have to pay for the performance of this contract. The Govt. will perform such duties in regard to the deduction of such taxes at source as per applicable law.” 14 12. Clause 13.1 of the work agreement provided that the executive engineer while executing a contract with the contractor shall have the full right to see that the terms and conditions, specifications, quality, workmanship of the work assigned to the contractor is fully complied and are satisfactory/acceptable before payments are released. As per the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P/1), an amount of Rs. 20,92,634/- have been excess paid to the petitioner under the work agreement and the schedule of payments have been disclosed in the said order. It has also been mentioned in the order dated 29.08.2024 that:- “ उपरोक्त तलि का ेሰ वቓኌत विववरो का अनुसारो आपका अनुबंध ेሰ रोशि रूपये 2002634.00 का भुगतनु अलिधका हुआ है# तथा अनुबंलिधत काये% प&% कारोनु अभु' रोष है#। ष काये* का प&% कारोनु का पቐኋत आपका% देगका- ेሰ सा उक्त रोशि रूपये 2092634.00 (G) का अवितरिरोक्त भुगतनु विकाये गये है# जि0साका साेሰये0नु विकाये 0नु है#। इसा अनुबंध ेሰ आपका का विनुेሰ% विवभुग ቛኋरो काई भु' भुगतनु ष नुहै' है#। सादेቓኌभुत प्ቔ का. 03 का साबंध ेሰ ख है# विका दिदेनुका 21.08.2024 का पनुरो'शि7त ्ቚसाका9ये स्व'का; वित ्ቚप्त है चुका9 है#। चु&विका अनुबंध ्ቅ. 10/डी'.ए ./2017-18 0'विवत है#. अतA अनुबंधनुसारो ष काये% आपका ቛኋरो प&% विकाये 0नु है#। काये% अप&% हैनु का कारो अनुबंध सा साबंलिधत सारो7 विनुलिध परोफारोेሰसा विनुलिध, काये% प&%त ्ቚेሰ-प्ቔ आदिदे अनुबंध प&% हैनु का प&व% दिदेये 0नु साभुव नुहैC है#।” 13. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submitted the copy of the order dated 21.08.2024 issued by the State Government, which is in respect of the administrative sanction of the work and it is also necessary to take notice of the said order dated 15 21.08.2024, which is reproduced hereinunder:- छቈኍसगढ़ शा सन खेल एवं युवं कल्यु ण विवंभा ग ::मंቔኋ लयु:: मंहा नदी भावंन, नयु रा युपुरा अटन नगरा //आदीशा// नयु रा युपुरा अटल नगरा, विदीन क 21/08/2024 ्ቅमं क एक 4-13/2006/न" :: रा ज्यु शा सन एतदी% ቛኋ रा जि(ल वि)ल सपुरा अतग*त )हातरा ई मं, रा ज्यु खेल ्ቚविशा्ቌण क न््ቖ मं, भावंन विनमं *ण क यु* क पुनरावि्ቌत ल गत क आधा रा पुरा रा विशा रूपुयु 11454.24 ल खे क3 विቛኋतयु पुनरावि्ቌत ्ቚशा सक3यु स्वंवि5 विनम्न नस रा ्ቚदी न करात हा7:- Ø- क यु* क विवंवंराण ्ቚथमं पुनरावि्ቌत ्ቚशा . स्वंक9 वित क3 रा विशा (रुपुयु ल खे मं,) विቛኋतयु पुनरावि्ቌत ्ቚशा . स्वंक9 वित हात विवंभा ग ቛኋ रा ्ቚस्त विवंत रा विशा (रुपुयु ल खे मं,) विवंቈኍ विवंभा x ቛኋ रा स्वंक9 त jkf'k (रुपुयु ल खे मं,) 1 आउटडो=रा स्टविडोयुमं baMksj स्टविडोयुमं ्ቚशा . भावंन, ) जिलक Nk=kokl, ) लक Nk=kokl] ckm.Mªh e; vkarfjd विवंቕ኎त क यु* क विनमं *ण क यु* 9109 00 7811.22 7811:22 2 ቎኏@)वंल iEi ckg~; विवंቕ኎त क यु* lh-,l-bZ-ch 'kqYd 373.00 381.51 381.51 3 Iy s xzkm.M fuekZ.k gsrq vkmVMksj LVsfM;e ,oa baMksj LVsfM;e esa eSnku leryhdj.k ,oa 8x400 eh- ,FkysfVd Vsªd ,oa ih-;w- csLM Q~yksfjax ifjlj esa gkWdh [ksy gsrq flaFksfVd VQZ] xSyjh fuekZ.k ,oa vkmVMksj esa ns’kh ?kkl ls IykUVs’ku dk;Z bR;kfn 1402.00 (1365.46+ 0.00+36.54) 1830.72 (1383.15+ 167.72+279.85) 1659.91 (1363.04+ 95.34+201.53) 4 ,Ldsys’ku 'kqYd ¼ewY; o`f)½ 300.00 1401.90 1401.90 5 vkarfjd lM+d dk fuekZ.k ¼ewy izkDdyu esa izLrkfor FkkA½ 0 199.70 199.70 ;ksx& 11184.00 11625.04 11454.24 2/ उपुरा=5 क यु* क3 ्ቚगवित/पु@ण*त क स)धा मं, शा सन क= अवंगत करा यु ( यु। 3/ उपुरा=5 ्ቚशा सक3यु स्वंक9 वित विवंቈኍ विवंभा ग क ( वंक कमं क 1007/स. एन./ )(ट-2/विवंቈኍ/चा रा 2024, विदीन क 13.08.2024 क मं ध्युमं स ्ቚ ्቎ सहामंवित क आधा रा पुरा स्वंक9 वित ्ቚदी न क3 गई हा7। छቈኍसगढ़ क रा ज्युपु ल क न मं स तथ आदीशा नlkरा lgh@gLrk{kj (आरा. एल. पुቔኋ) अवंरा सविचावं छቈኍसग<+ शा सन खेल एवं युवं कल्यु ण विवंभा ग 16 14. When the administrative sanction has already been made on 21.08.2024 and the respondent authorities have considered that the work agreement No. 10/DL/2017-18 is still subsists and the petitioner is required to complete the work under the work agreement, the petitioner cannot claim the refund of his security deposit/performance security and work completion certificate, particularly in absence of challenge to the administrative sanction dated 21.08.2024. The payment of excess amount under the work agreement has also been explained by the respondents that, the petitioner had to import the advance machinery and equipments from abroad and to pay the custom duty and other taxes, they have paid the said amount to the petitioner subject to adjustment in the final/running bills. 15. Further, clause 16 of the work agreement provided the arbitration clause, which is available in page No. 36 of the writ petition, which reads as under:- “Clause 16: Arbitration 16.1 Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever. In any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or conditions of the contract or otherwise 17 concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the cancellation, termination, completion or abandonment thereof shall be settled amicably between the parties. If amicable settlement cannot be reached, disputes or differences shall be referred for adjudication through arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Government of Chhattisgarh, P.W.D. If the arbitrator so appointed is unable or unwilling to act or resigns his appointment or vacates his office due to any reason whatsoever, another sole arbitrator shall be appointed in the manner aforesaid. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. 16.2 It is a term of this contract that the party invoking arbitration shall give a list of disputes with amounts claimed in respect of each such dispute along with the notice for appointment of arbitrator. 16.3 It is also a term of this contract that no person other than a person appointed by the Government of Chhattisgarh, P.W.D. as aforesaid, should act as arbitrator and if for any reason that is not possible, the matter shall not be referred to arbitration at all. 16.4 It is also a term of this contract that if the contractor does not make any demand for 18 appointment of arbitrator in respect of any claim in writing as aforesaid within 120 days of receiving the intimation from the committee, that the final bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractor shall be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the Executive Engineer shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. 16.5 The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) or any statutory modifications or re- enactment thereof and the rules made there under and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. It is also a term of this contract that the arbitrator shall adjudicate on only such disputes as are referred to him by the appointing authority and give separate award against each dispute and claim referred to him and in all cases, the arbitrator shall give reasons for the award. 16.6 It is also a term of the contract that if any fees are payable to the arbitrator and any other expenses incurred for arbitration proceedings, these shall be paid equally by both the parties. 16.7 It is also a term of the contract that arbitrator shall be deemed to have entered on the reference on the date he issues notice to 19 both the parties calling them to submit their statement of claims and counter statement of claims. The venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be such place as may be fixed by the arbitrator in his sole discretion. The fees, if any, to the arbitrator shall, if required to be paid before the award is made and published, be paid half and half by each of the parties. The cost of the reference and of the award (including the fees, if any, of the arbitrator) shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator who may direct to and by whom and in what manner, such costs or any part thereof shall be paid and fix or settle the amount of costs to be so paid. 16.8 Notwithstanding anything contained in this contract, the parties shall not be entitled to invoke reference of dispute to the arbitration after acceptance of the final payment until it is so recorded on the bill that the same was being received under protest. 16.9 The award shall be final and binding on both parties. Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English language and in India only.” 16. In the instant case, there are various disputed questions of fact involved, including whether the delay in completion of work was caused due to any lapses on the part of the authorities or by the petitioner himself, what works were completed by the petitioner, for 20 which running bills have been paid, what works remain incomplete, whether the petitioner is acting in violation of the terms of the work agreement or it is the respondent authorities, who have violated the terms of the work agreement, what quantity of work has actually been executed. The petitioner’s claim for damages and compensation is a pure question of fact, which requires further determination based on the relevant facts. In the present case, the reliefs sought by the petitioner are contingent upon the resolution of these disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the disputed questions of facts involved in the present writ petition, the reliefs sought by the petitioner and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above stated judgments, we do not find any scope for interference in the present writ petition. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies available to him under the law. 19. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved