JUDGMENT The appellant, who was the petitioner in WP(C)No. 30 of 2014, has filed this Writ Appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2014 dismissing his writ petition. 2. The appellant, a First Class Government Contractor, was assigned with the job of execution of a work (KIP ‘L-Earth works (SH:- construction of Right side Main canal from RD 52050m to 52416m) at an estimated cost of Rs.16,30,210/-(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand Two Hundred Ten). The work order was issued on 18.12.2008. The petitioner-appellant claims to have completed the work and received part payment. The rest part of the amount having not been paid, it appears, he had approached this Court in WP(C) No.788 of 2012 and this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the State respondents to verify the claim of the petitioner-appellant in terms of the Full Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of LS Punii Vs. State of Manipur & Ors in WP(C) No. 2278/2008 disposed of on 29.9.2008. In compliance with the said order, the impugned order was passed on 2nd Dec.2013 by the Chief Engineer, IFCD Manipur rejecting the claim of the petitioner-appellant. Challenging the said order dt. 2.12.2013 passed by the Chief Engineer, the appellant preferred WP(C)No.30 of 2014 before this Court and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition basically on two grounds. The first ground of dismissal is that the case involves disputed questions of fact which would require evidence and such exercise cannot be done in a writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The second ground of dismissal is existence of an Arbitration clause in the agreement and therefore availability of an alternative remedy to the petitioner appellant. 3. Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew attention of the Court to documents attached to the writ petition and submitted that the appellant had completed the work and Measurement Book clearly indicates completion of such work. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the liability statement prepared by the Department as in July, 2012 the appellant whose name appears at Sl.No.11 was entitled to the amount indicated therein and therefore such amount indicated in the liability statement annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-D/4 is not in dispute and could be directed by the learned Single Judge for payment. 4. 4. Shri Y. Nirmolchand and Mrs Th. Sobhana Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that after the first writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of, as per direction contained therein, verification was made and it was found that the appellant has not completed the work and also deviated from the design. Some photographs have been attached to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents in this appeal to show that though the appellant was required to excavate a canal, no canal was excavated and the work has wrongly shown to have been completed. Apart from the above, it was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is an arbitration clause in the Agreement and it is open for the appellant to invoke the arbitration clause to establish his claim. 5. There is no dispute that the appellant had been entrusted with the execution of above work and had also executed at least a part of the work. The Measurement Book shows that the work had been completed. However, on verification it was found that the appellant had executed the work without reaching the desired level in height and breadth in the item “Earth work in excavation, banking excavated earth” included in the contract. The appellant had also not taken up construction of two embankments from the desired/designed bed level of canal and also did not execute the work where cutting was necessary for the canal. Through verification, it was also found that the work had not been executed as per the drawing and was incomplete. Signature of the contractor, i.e. the appellant was not seen on each set of measurement and measurement done by the Section Officer did not bear Test Check and signature of the Assistant Engineer concerned. In view of the above defects pointed by the Department in its impugned order dt. 2.12.2013 passed by the Chief Engineer, it appears a serious dispute is raised as to whether the appellant had actually executed the work as per the design and as to whether he had completed the work. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in taking a view that such disputed questions can only be decided by adducing evidence which is not permissible in a writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in taking a view that such disputed questions can only be decided by adducing evidence which is not permissible in a writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge was also justified in holding that there being a Arbitration clause, the appellant could invoke the same to establish his claim. In this connection, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for filing the writ petition and reliance was placed by him on some decisions of the Apex Court specially the case of (i) ABL International Ltd. & Anr vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 (ii) State of H.P. & Ors Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 . On reading of the above two decisions, we find that only when a disputed question of fact can be decided on the basis of interpretation of certain admitted documents, alternative remedy may not be a complete bar, but where such disputed questions of fact require evidence to be adduced, such exercise cannot be undertaken in a writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the finding of the learned Single Judge. 6. However, we find that the Measurement Book clearly indicates that the work had been completed. Admittedly the verification was done long time after the work was undertaken. In course of verification, certain defects were found. In our opinion since verification was done after long lapse of time and the work was mainly earth work, before coming to the conclusion as to whether the appellant is entitled to the amount claimed, an opportunity should have been given to him to remain present at the time of verification. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. It is also not known as to whether this issue was raised before the learned Single Judge or not. We are, therefore of the view that the impugned order passed by the Chief Engineer dt. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. It is also not known as to whether this issue was raised before the learned Single Judge or not. We are, therefore of the view that the impugned order passed by the Chief Engineer dt. 2.12.2013 should be set aside and a fresh order should be passed by the Chief Engineer after giving an opportunity to the appellant to put forward his case with regard to the defects found in course of the verification. 7. We accordingly allow the writ appeal, set aside the impugned order dt. 2.12.2013 as well as the impugned judgment and direct the Chief Engineer, I& FC Department, Manipur to serve a copy of the defects found in course of the verification on the appellant giving him a month’s time to submit reply and after consideration of such reply, pass a fresh order as to whether the appellant is entitled to the claim or not. If, after consideration of the reply of the appellant, the claim is rejected, the appellant can invoke the Arbitration clause in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and law. Writ Appeal is disposed of.