JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of and has called in question communication dated 07.07.2021, issued by respondent No.5 to the Branch Manager, J&K Bank, Bijbehara, the respondent No.6 herein, whereby the later has been requested to deposit the amount of Term Deposit Receipt amounting to Rs.30.00 lakhs submitted by the petitioner on account of security deposit, in the Additional Treasury, Tankipora, Srinagar, in Revenue Head 0055-Police. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Zonal Police Headquarters, Kashmir, Srinagar, invited e-tenders vide e-NIT No.02 of 2019 dated 19.02.2019, for supply of commercial vehicles for the subordinate units of Kashmir Zone for the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner along with various other firms participated in the tendering process. The petitioner was declared as the lowest tenderer (L1) for supply of following two types of vehicles: (I) Truck 10 Ton (HMV) @Rs.1397/ (II) Water Tanker @Rs.1900/ 3. Accordingly, the petitioner was allotted the rate contract by respondent No.3. As per one of the terms and conditions of the NIT, the approved tenderer was required to furnish the security deposit equivalent to 3% of the contract value in the form of CDR from a Nationalized Bank. The petitioner, thus, furnished the security deposit in the shape of Term Deposit Receipt to the tune of Rs.30.00 lakhs. An agreement between petitioner and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir was executed on 1st June, 2019. As per the contract awarded to the petitioner and the agreement executed between the parties, the petitioner was supposed to make the supply of required number of vehicles. However, the petitioner failed to fulfil the contractual commitment and expressed his inability to provide the required number of trucks on 31.07.2019 for carriage of CAPF companies. The petitioner even requested the respondents to award the rate contract to the second lowest tenderer. 4. On account of failure of the petitioner to supply the vehicles requisitioned by the respondents, the Technical Evaluation Committee constituted vide ZPHQ communication dated 25th May, 2019, deliberated on the issue and, accordingly, second lowest tenderer was contacted, who too refused to provide the trucks at the rates mutually agreed with the petitioner. The second lowest tenderer instead quoted new rate of Rs.1900/ per truck per day. 5. In view of the exigency of the issue, the matter was negotiated with the second lowest tenderer i.e., M/S New JK Roadways. The second lowest tenderer instead quoted new rate of Rs.1900/ per truck per day. 5. In view of the exigency of the issue, the matter was negotiated with the second lowest tenderer i.e., M/S New JK Roadways. After negotiations, the M/S New JK Roadways agreed to provide required transport/trucks 10 Ton for the financial year 2019-20@Rs.1649/ per day per truck. In this way, the respondents were put to loss. 6. The case of the petitioner, however, is that prior to abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, the non-residents of J&K were instructed to leave the Valley for security reasons and as a result whereof, the drivers working with the petitioners, who were mostly outsiders, left the Valley. It is because of these circumstances and with the abrogation of Article 370 and imposition of curfew thereafter, the petitioner could not keep up his commitment and provide the requisite number of trucks to the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he was ready to supply only 300 trucks to the respondents whereas total demand of 370 trucks was projected by the respondents. He, therefore, submits that he could not fulfill the contractual obligation because of the reasons beyond his control. The petitioner claims that he made several representations to the respondents to release the security deposit for the reason that he was not guilty of any breach of contract but the respondents hurriedly passed the impugned communication and directed the respondent No.6 to forfeit the security deposit of the petitioner. 7. In the background of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has filed the instant petition and thrown challenge to the impugned communication. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is seen that the fate of the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner hinges on the determination of a complicated question of fact and law i.e., whether the petitioner is guilty of breach of contract entailing the forfeiture of security deposit under the terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioner does not deny that he could not fulfill the contractual commitment of supplying the trucks to the respondents. He, however, submits that he could not perform his contractual obligations and supply the requisite number of trucks to the respondents due to the circumstances beyond his control. The petitioner does not deny that he could not fulfill the contractual commitment of supplying the trucks to the respondents. He, however, submits that he could not perform his contractual obligations and supply the requisite number of trucks to the respondents due to the circumstances beyond his control. The precise case of the petitioner is that prior to abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, the outside drivers engaged by him to drive the trucks left the Valley and thus incapacitated the petitioner to fulfill his contractual obligations. On the contrary, the case of the respondents is that on account of failure of the petitioner to fulfill his contractual obligations, they were constrained to negotiate rate contract with the second lowest tenderer, namely, M/S New JK Roadways, who, with great difficulty, was persuaded to supply the trucks but on the rates higher than the one agreed to by the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, the respondents claim that they are entitled to be compensated for the loss that has occasioned to them due to failure of the petitioner to fulfill the contractual obligations. 9. Viewed thus, I am of the opinion that the dispute raised in this petition falls in the realm of contract and its resolution would depend upon the determination of highly complicated disputed questions of fact requiring oral as well as documentary evidence to be led by the parties. The material on record is not sufficient for me to determine these questions of fact. 10. Indisputably, the petitioner has not been able to carry out the contract. Whether he was prevented to perform his contractual obligations because of reasons beyond his control or otherwise, is a complicated disputed question of fact. Once this fact is determined, the impact thereof on the performance of contractual obligation alone could be ascertained. 11. In view of the above and having regard to the nature of controversy raised, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is not a remedy to adjudicate these complicated disputed questions of fact and it is necessary to relegate the parties to the remedy under civil law. 12. This petition is, therefore, found not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to workout his remedy as may be available to him under civil law.