Rp Projects Private Limited, v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1063 of 2018

1. RP Projects Private Limited, a company registered under Companies Act & Rep. by its Authorized Signatory - Shri Suresh Kumar, 45 Years, S/o Shri PNB Naidu, Having Its Current Address At Plot No.1009, 'Katurniwas' Srinagar Colony Hyderabad, 500073, Telengana ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B&R) Sukma Division, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Sharad Mishra and Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent/State Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, Addl. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

14/05/2018 1.

The petitioner would call in question the orders dated 24.03.2018 and 06.03.2018 passed by the respondents terminating the agreement for construction and widening of 2 lane Injerum-Bhejji Road (1 to 4 Km) at District Sukma along with improvements in bridge and culverts.

2.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3.

Bare reading of the subject communications dated 06.03.2018 and 24.03.2018, it is apparent that the respondents have found that the petitioner has committed fundamental breach of contract (Clause

38) and sub-clause 2 & (ii), (a), (C), (d), (e) of Clause 3 of the Contract Agreement, which has compelled the respondents to terminate the contract in accordance with Clause 3 (i) read with Clause 2, 3 and Clause 38 of the Contract Agreement. By second communication dated 24.03.2018, the petitioner has been directed not to continue any construction work as its contract has been terminated on 06.03.2018.

4.

Clause 28 of the subject agreement provides for arbitration, therefore, the petitioner has the remedy of raising an arbitration dispute in terms of the said clause. The respondents having clearly alleged breach of contract by the petitioner and there being an arbitration clause in the agreement, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out its remedy in terms of the contract agreement.

Sd/- Sd/- Judge Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Ram Prasanna Sharma Gowri