01Facts
The petitioner was awarded a contract under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana for construction and maintenance of a rural road in Barpeta District.
p. 3The contract, for ₹17,24,37,355, was accepted on 8 March 2019 and executed on 13 June 2019, with a 12-month completion period.
p. 3The petitioner attributed the delay to access difficulties and alleged that the respondents had failed to perform reciprocal obligations; the respondents denied this and maintained that they had fulfilled their obligations, including payment of dues.
pp. 3, 5–6After a modification to the contract in August 2022, the respondents terminated it on 17 December 2024 for alleged fundamental breach and at the petitioner’s risk and cost.
p. 3, 5The petitioner sought to quash the termination and to be allowed to complete the remaining work.
p. 5In the meantime, the remaining work was awarded to another contractor, and the court noted the reported progress and anticipated completion dates.
p. 4Interim protection against coercive steps and imposition of risk and cost had been granted during the proceedings.
p. 402Issues
i.1. Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the termination when the parties’ competing explanations for non-completion raised disputed questions of fact requiring evidence.
pp. 5–6ii.2. Whether the petitioner could be granted an opportunity to complete the balance work after it had been awarded to another contractor.
p. 503Law Applied
The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
p. 6It held that disputes turning on contested factual allegations, which require proof by oral and documentary evidence, are not suitable for determination in writ proceedings and should be resolved in a forum where such evidence can be led.
p. 604Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner and respondents gave conflicting accounts of why the contract was not completed: the petitioner alleged non-performance of reciprocal obligations and other circumstances beyond its control, while the respondents asserted that they had performed their obligations and the petitioner had committed a fundamental breach.
pp. 5–6Resolving those claims would require evidentiary examination, making the writ proceeding inappropriate for deciding the termination dispute.
p. 6The Court also declined to direct that the petitioner complete the remaining work because another contractor had been engaged and the work was progressing toward completion.
p. 505Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, declining to interfere with the termination under Article 226 and refusing the requested opportunity to complete the remaining work.
pp. 5–7The dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to challenge the termination in other proceedings; the period from 18 January 2025 until the judgment was directed to be excluded when computing limitation.
p. 7The Court further stated that dismissal would not prejudice the petitioner’s rights in any such proceedings, and vacated the interim order.
p. 7Original Court PDF
Muslim AlivsThe State Of Assam And 3 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
