Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Mukund Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) The writ petition was initially filed challenging the letter dated 3.4.2010 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Sitapur-Kheri Circle, Public Works Department, Sitapur requesting opposite party No. 5, HDFC Bank limited to encash the enclosed bank guarantee and issue a bank draft in favour of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Public Works Department, Sitapur payable at Sitapur and restrain the bank from revoking the bank guarantee in favour of the opposite party. During the pendency of the writ petition by way of amendment application the petitioner has challenged the office order dated 3.4.2010 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Sitapur-Kheri Circle, Public Works Department, Sitapur opposite party No. 3 terminating the contract for fundamental breach of contract and imposing the recovery of 10% of the contractual amount.
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the disputes involved in the present writ petition are purely contractual and the writ petition on the present facts and circumstances is not maintainable. Moreover, as per clauses-24 and 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, the Dispute Redressal System has been provided and in case either of the party feeling not satisfied with the decision of the competent authority may invoke the arbitration clause and get the dispute decided through arbitration under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.;