GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 3 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 8:

1. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. The instant writ petition is taken up for despoil at the motion stage itself.

3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the respondent authorities had allotted the work for construction of Sri Sri Anuruddhadeva Sports University at Chabua, Assam vide the work order dated 30.11.2023 at a contract price of Rs.56,62,50,960/-. The period of completion of the contract in question was 24 months. A contract agreement was also entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was performing the work and all of a sudden, a final notice for determining the contract was issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD on 29.05.2025. Immediately on the next date, the Executive Engineer, PWD terminated the contract by the communication dated 30.05.2025 which has been challenged in the instant proceedings.

4. Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though there is an arbitration clause, but the manner in which the termination has been done apparently is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as the said is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable as well as palpably erroneous and without jurisdiction. In support of the submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Clause 3 of the Conditions of the Contract which stipulates as to when a contract can be determined. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention to the said Clause submitted that the power to determine is conferred upon the Engineer-in-Charge. The learned senior counsel further drawing the attention of this Court to the Definitions as contained in the Conditions of the Contract, and more particularly to Clause 2

(vi) and Clause 2

(vii) submitted that the Engineer-in-Charge means 'the Chief Engineer who shall be in-charge of the work and who shall sign the contract on behalf of the Governor of Assam as mentioned in Schedule-F'. It is further seen that the terms "Chief Engineer" have been further explained to mean the "Chief Engineer, PWD (Building), Assam".

5. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the PWD submitted that taking into account the Clause 2 (vi) and Clause 2 (vii) as well as Clause 3 of the Conditions of the Contract, it appears that the termination of the contract by the Executive Engineer do not appear to be in consonance with the terms of the contract. He, however, submitted that taking into account that time is the essence of the contract and the period of completion was 2 years and the progress being not sufficient, the respondents have rightly determined the contract.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2BJ2%2BWovMIAf87fh3jJEeQbLEp4B4xY3HdIGPdk4d7qf&caseno=WP(C)/4359/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010171342025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.