Contractual disputes must follow statutory arbitration while debarment challenges require exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The petitioner, a civil contractor, was awarded a contract by the M.P. Rural Road Development Authority (MPRRDA) in December 2022 for the maintenance of a rural road in District Rewa.

Following disputes regarding pre-existing road defects and project delays, the petitioner invoked the contractual dispute resolution mechanism.

However, on May 4, 2026, the respondent terminated the contract under Clause 52 and debarred the petitioner from future tenders for two years.

The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging a violation of natural justice as no specific show-cause notice was issued regarding the debarment.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the termination of a contract when an alternative statutory remedy is available.

2. Whether the petitioner’s grievance regarding debarment/blacklisting should be adjudicated by the court or through administrative representation.

The court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the presence of alternative remedies.

It relied on the principle that contractual terminations are subject to specialized arbitration under the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal.

Principles of natural justice and administrative law concerning debarment, which require a specific show-cause notice and the right to be heard before a contractor is blacklisted.

Regarding the termination, the court observed that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, making the writ petition unsuitable for that specific relief.

Regarding the two-year debarment, the court noted the petitioner’s argument that no specific notice for blacklisting was provided.

The court determined that the issue of blacklisting should first be addressed through a formal representation to the Engineer-in-Chief/Respondent No. 1, who is obligated to follow state policies and contractual terms.

The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation/appeal to the respondent No. 1 regarding the debarment, who is ordered to decide the matter in accordance with the law and state blacklisting policies.

The court disposed of the writ petition without interfering with the termination order.