R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.05.2010 cancelling the agreement entered into with the petitioner for construction of Coffer Dam and forfeiting his security. The re -tender notice dated 31.5.2010 has also been challenged.
(2.) MR . V.P. Singh, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after execution of the agreement, respondents did not mark the lay out inspite of repeated requests by the petitioner, and therefore, petitioner was not at fault in not completing the work; and that petitioner is willing to complete the work at the old rate. He also submitted that the concerned respondents were informed about the objections of the villagers also; and that some of the villagers were paid their compensation only on 03.03.2010. On the other hand, Mr. D. K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the State referring to paragraphs 8 to 14 and 22 of the counter affidavit submitted that inspite of repeated letters/notices, petitioner did not start the work and responded to the some of the letters/notices after several months, whereas the other contractors completed their work within time and that, it did not show any interest in the work. Thus, there was no way out than to cancel the agreement and forfeit the security. He further submitted that most of the displaced persons were paid compensation and with regard to only some land, it was paid on 03.03.2010. Thereafter, also a final notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.4.2010 to which the petitioner did not respond. He lastly submitted that petitioner was given proper assistance and guidance to start the work, and it was given hindrance free site and lay out was marked twice by the Field Engineers.
(3.) IT appears that there is serious dispute over the facts between the parties. On the one hand, petitioner's contention is that it was not at fault rather the respondents were at fault due to which it could not start the work; whereas the respondents contend that inspite of sufficient opportunity, petitioner did not start the work on one or other pretext and that the petitioner is only responsible and guilty and not the respondents. There are allegations and counter allegations between the parties. The disputed questions of facts can not be decided in this writ petition. Moreover, the disputes arise from a non -statutory contract. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.;