Judgment 1. Writ petitioner-appellant aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 9089 of 2007 has preferred this appeal under Clause-X of the Letters Patent. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner- appellant aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2007, rescinding the agreement for widening and strengthening of the National Highway had preferred the writ application. The agreement was cancelled on the ground that the writ petitioner-appellant had not adhered to the work schedule as promised by it. 3. It is not in dispute that after the agreement was rescinded, work was given to another contractor, and much progress has been made in execution of the work. 4. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application has, inter alia observed as follows: "The petitioners can settle their dispute in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement and can claim for compensation from respondent-Nigam the amount which has been spent by them." 5. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant submits that the agreement has been rescinded de hors the same and, as such, it is a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In support of the submission reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of M/s Pancham Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1991(1) PLJR 352 . 6. The learned Advocate General, however, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 submits that the agreement itself provides for its cancellation on various grounds and hence it cannot be said that it has been done de hors the agreement. In reply thereto Mr. Mahto points out that it has been rescinded on non est ground. 7. As stated earlier much progress has been made in execution of the work. To what extent the writ petitioner-appellant had executed the work and whether the work executed is in accordance with the schedule given by it, require examination of fact. There is oath against oath so far as this issue is concerned and in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is fit to be exercised. There is oath against oath so far as this issue is concerned and in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is fit to be exercised. It is well settled that this Court interferes with the grant or cancellation of the contract, not only when a legal point is made out but interference is required in larger public interest. In view of the progress made in execution of the work, the case in hand is not one of such cases. 8. Mr. Mahto, then submits that in view of illegal rescinding of the agreement, writ petitioner-appellant had suffered and, as such, he is entitled for compensation. It has also been pointed out that the respondents may invoke bank guarantee given by the appellant. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd. vs. West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. and Others (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 116). 9. There is no quarrel with the legal submission that in the facts of a given case this Court possesses power to grant compensation in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. But this power has to be exercised with great care and caution and on making out of an exceptional case. Here as stated earlier the contract was rescinded on the ground that writ petitioner- appellant had not executed the work conforming to the time-schedule given by it. This has been seriously disputed by the writ petitioner-appellant. This requires examination of fact and as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner can settle its dispute in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement and claim compensation. 10. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. 11. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.