of the work is attributable to the latches/inaction of the petitioner. It is the admitted case of the parties that when the contract was revived after discussion between the petitioner and the Chief Engineer, it was stipulated that the petitioner would complete the work by 31.5.1992 and accordingly, the Chairman, OSHB approved escalation of price in respect of the work executed up to 31.5.1992. Such escalation was refused beyond 31.5.1992 on the plea that delay occurred due to the latches on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner, on the other hand, has averred that due to non-clearance of site, erroneous estimation of the schedule item of work, non-supply of materials and irregular payments, the progress of the work was slowed down and so the allegation that delay occurred due to his latches is not acceptable. 10. The letter of the authorities to resume the work clearly stipulated that the work should be completed by 31.05.1992 letter dated 5.2.1993 the escalation clause was not allowed. In spite of absence of the escalation clause, the petitioner is now demanding the escalation price of the materials and POL on the plea that delay in completion of the work was not due to his fault, but due to the fault of the opposite parties and to substantiate this stand, he has placed reliance on Annexure-E, which is the recommendation of the Project Engineer-III. The opposite parties, on the other hand, have countered this plea by stating that prompt action was always there from the side of the contractor and the fault was always with the contractor-petitioner. In order to find out who was at fault and for whose lapses delay occurred, facts, evidence and circumstances are to be analysed. Ordinarily a Writ Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot entertain and issue a direction for enforcement of as claim, where the claim is based on disputed questions of fact. In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. Cited by Mr. Patnaik, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court held that in appropriate cases, a Writ Petition as against the State or the instrumentality of the State arising out of contractual obligation is maintainable
