JUDGMENT Heard Sri A.R. Khan learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has come up questioning the recovery proceedings that have been initiated on an allegation that the petitioner has failed to carry out the terms of the agreement under the contract in relation to the performance as was entrusted to the petitioner for carrying out certain construction work for the respondent Public Works Department. The petitioner had earlier come up in W.P. No. 4547(MB) of 2016 and the following order was passed thereon : "After the matter was heard, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition in order to enable him to avail of the appropriate remedy with regard to any violation of the terms of agreement. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the said liberty, as we are also not inclined to entertain the writ petition relating to the challenge raised to the terms of agreement." The petitioner contends that in spite of remedy having been availed of by approaching the respondents, no action has been taken and as a matter of fact no relief has been granted to the petitioner. Consequently, in respect of any such damages a recovery could not have been initiated, hence, the challenge raised is to the recovery notice and citation of the recovery issued consequent thereto. In the aforesaid background Sri Khan submits that the petitioner cannot be saddled with any such liability as also the fact that the aforesaid position is admitted to the respondents as they have awarded the contract to another party for completion of the work which does not indicate any such loss so as to invoke the recovery proceedings against the petitioner. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the petitioner have been permitted to withdraw the writ petition and avail the remedy of questioning the correctness of the action of the respondents in terms of the agreement. What we find from the bidding document which is on record that clause 24 and 25 of the agreement clearly envisages the disposal of a dispute to an adjudicator and arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. What we find from the bidding document which is on record that clause 24 and 25 of the agreement clearly envisages the disposal of a dispute to an adjudicator and arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Whether there was any loss or whether the respondents were only recovering the damages will also be an issue that shall presumably be covered under the clause of adjudication and consequently we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach the competent Arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the bid documents invoking the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, it will be open to the petitioner to invoke the aforesaid provisions as seek such remedy as may be available in law. The writ petition is disposed of with the said observations.