(1.) Ahmedabad Baroda Express Highway was to be constructed and six contracts Nos. 5 to 10 for works of about Rs. 77 crores were entrusted to the appellant-petitioner. The works were to start in May/June 1987 and the stipulated dates of completion were January/February 1992 (57 months). The dates of completion were revised and the revised date was 31st December 1994. During this period, notices were issued from time to time under Clause 46 and on 19th August 1994, notices were issued under Clause 47 of the contract agreements. Ultimately, on 28th December 1994, by interim notices, the contractor was ordered to be expelled from the contract site. The contracts expired on 31st December 1994. As a result of this, the Government entered the site and sought to encash the bank guarantee by making demand to the bank. It is stated that the bank guarantee in respect of these six contracts are for about Rs. 15.11 crores.
(2.) The appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for challenging the above notices and enforcement of the bank guarantees. By judgment dated 10-10-1995, the learned single Judge held that the appellant was trying to enforce the contract and claim rights under the contract and was not entitled to any constitutional right and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. The learned single Judge also held that the petition involved disputed questions of fact. At the same time, the learned single Judge also held that the Government cannot be restrained from entering the site and trying to recover the construction plants and machineries.
(3.) After contending that the petition was maintainable under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the learned Counsel for the appellant has raised three contentions on merits :