JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to finalize the contract of the petitioner and release the outstanding bill amount as well as securities including Performance Security. The petitioner alternatively also prayed that the petitioner be allowed to complete the project by applying the PWD SOR 2013-14. 3. The question is as to whether this Court should exercise its power of judicial review in a matter of the present nature. 4. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.2 had issued an Invitation for Bids on 11.12.2014 thereby inviting bids from registered Class-1(A) APWD/CPWD Building contractors for construction of a multistoried market building for Guwahati Municipal Corporation at Fatasil, Guwahati (civil works, sanitary and water supply including electrical works) under the award of the Fourth Assam Finance Commission for 2012-13 for an estimated amount of Rs.189 lakhs. The completion period was 18 months as per the Invitation for Bids dated 11.12.2014. 5. The petitioner participated in the said bidding process and was awarded a contract at a price of Rs.2,11,61,200/- and the petitioner was requested to furnish the performance guarantee plus additional security within seven days. The materials on record further show that the petitioner executed a contract agreement with the respondent authorities and deposited the required performance security. The respondent No.2 thereupon issued a notice to proceed with the work on 06.01.2015. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner in terms with the notice to proceed with the work could carry out certain works taking into account that the site in question was not made available to the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner after completing 47 numbers of piling works out of 226 as per the drawing, requested the Site Engineer to clear the other parts of the site by removing the present structure of the disputes so that he can start the remaining piling work. However, the respondents did not provide the site for which the petitioner represented on various occasions. 7. However, the respondents did not provide the site for which the petitioner represented on various occasions. 7. It was also the case of the petitioner that only 30% of the site area was handed over to the petitioner initially, and as such, it was difficult on the part of the petitioner to complete the work within the completion period. It is also the case of the petitioner that subsequently the area which was handed over was only 50% and there was an assurance being given by the respondent authorities that the remaining area would be handed over. It is further apparent from the pleadings as well as the documents enclosed to the writ petition that there had been various correspondences between the petitioner and the respondent authorities for handing over the entire site. It is further stated that while the correspondences continued, the period of the contract lapsed. However, it is alleged that the respondents kept the contract alive. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had quoted the rates for completion of the work by taking into consideration the prevailing market prices in the year 2014. It became impossible for the petitioner to continue with the work, if there was no escalation to the price. The petitioner also offered to complete the work if there is a price escalation being granted in terms with PWD SOR 2013-14. However, the respondents failed to respond to such representation. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court that a contract be finalized and the outstanding amount to which the petitioner is entitled to for the work the petitioner has done be paid to the petitioner and in the alternative, the petitioner sought for that the petitioner be permitted to complete the work by giving him due escalation in terms with the PWD SOR 2013-14. 9. It is seen that the instant writ petition was filed on 12.03.2020 and this Court issued notice on 09.06.2020. 10. The record reveals that the respondent No.2 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 12.06.2025. It is the specific stand so taken by the respondents that the petitioner, prior to submission of the tender like all other bidders, were given a due opportunity to inspect the site and the petitioner well knew that the site in question was being used as a market. It is the specific stand so taken by the respondents that the petitioner, prior to submission of the tender like all other bidders, were given a due opportunity to inspect the site and the petitioner well knew that the site in question was being used as a market. It was further mentioned that the understanding between the petitioner as well as the respondents were that the respondents would provide certain portion of the site so that the petitioner would be in a position to carry out the construction and once that construction is being carried out, the persons who are carrying out market activities in the said area would be accommodated in the constructed area, and as such, 50% of the site area was handed over. It was the further case that the petitioner inspite of knowing the said condition, insisted on being given the entire site area. It was also mentioned that the respondent authorities took various steps so that the petitioner could be provided the balanced portion of the site, however, on account of an order dated 06.04.2017 in WP(C) No.2169/2017, the entire area could not be handed over to the petitioner. 11. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, this Court has duly heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel of GMC. 12. The question as to whether there was any discussion between the petitioner as well as the respondent authorities that there would be part handing over of the site; the question as to whether 30% of the site or 50% of the site was handed over; the question as to whether the petitioner was in a position to raise construction on the 50% of the site so that the persons who were already occupying the remaining portion could be accommodated in the portion which would have been constructed by the petitioner; the question as to whether the petitioner had made construction as per the drawings in respect to the 50% of the area; the question as to what amount the petitioner would be entitled to for the work the petitioner had allegedly completed as well as whether there was any breach of the terms of the contract by the petitioner or the respondent authorities, in the opinion of this Court comes within the disputed questions of facts. It is further observed that without evidence being led, the question of adjudication of such disputes as stated above would be difficult. 13. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of Clause 25 of the General Conditions of the Contract as well as Clause 21 of the Special Conditions of the Contract. In terms with Clause 25.3 of the General Conditions of the Contract, it is stipulated that the disputes would be settled by Arbitration and the manner in which the Arbitration would be conducted is mentioned in Clause 21 of the Special Conditions of the Contract. Taking into account that the parties have already agreed to resolve their disputes in the manner stipulated in Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract as well as Clause 21 of the Special Conditions of the Contract, this Court is of the opinion that the question of exercising writ jurisdiction in respect to disputes within the realm of disputed questions of facts do not arise. 14. In view of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the present case is not a fit case for exercising the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly dismisses the instant writ petition. 15. Before concluding, this Court however observes that as the instant writ petition is being dismissed on the ground of that the writ petition is not maintainable, the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner to approach the Appropriate Forum seeking his dues as well as damages or compensation, if so advised. 16. This Court further observes that as the petitioner was bonafidely litigating, the period from 12.03.2020 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. 17. The observations made herein shall not influence the Appropriate Forum in deciding the claims of the parties, if any proceedings is/are initiated.