GUWAHATI, India, May 25 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on April 24:

1. Heard Mr. R. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. S. Baruah, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. I have also heard Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. R. R. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.7.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs which are reproduced herein under:

"(i) To set aside and quash the show cause notice no. 23(106)/EE/PD/2020/329 dated 12.05.2020.

(ii) To set aside and quash the order of termination of work order vide No. 23(106)/EE/PD/2020/713 dated 28.08.2020 issued by the Respondent No.3 and upon cause or causes being shown and after hearing both the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute.

(iii) To direct the Respondents to refund the amount of performance guarantee which was furnished to them in the form of BG Bond No.3213ILG001618 dated 17.05.2018 for Rs.22,93,058.00 issued by Punjab National Bank, Mahabir Market Branch, S.R.C.B. road, Guwahati-781001.

(iv) To direct the Respondents to pay the Bank charges for extra 16 months paid by the petitioners to his Banker for keeping the BG Bond No. 3213ILG001618 dated 17.05.2018 for Rs.22,93,058.00 alive till the determination of the contract."

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of Internal Roads at 33rd Bn. ITBP Karchia Sonapur, Guwahati. However, on account of not granting of the permissions by the Forest Department of the Government of Assam as well as the ban imposed by the District Administration, Kamrup (M), the Petitioner could not complete the work and resultantly after issuance of Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner's contract was terminated and the Bank Guarantee invoked. The Petitioner therefore has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. It is the opinion of this Court that the issue involved in the instant proceedings relates to as to whether there was any breach of contract by the Petitioner or the Petitioner was restricted by conditions beyond its control to perform the terms of the contract. These aspects cannot be decided in a writ proceeding taking into account that evidence has to be led as to the existence of such circumstances which did not permit the Petitioner to carry out the performance of the work.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoJXM6KZEuKg67NsNiq8OOoXOK0MNYKmVpZDedu9wIEcv&caseno=WP(C)/2945/2021&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010080402021&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.