Karnataka HC Declines Writ Relief to IIT Dharwad Contractor in Termination Dispute, Leaves Him to Contractual Remedies

The petitioner was awarded a contract for miscellaneous works in Phase 1A of the permanent campus of IIT Dharwad.

The respondent terminated the contract by letter dated 18 April 2026.

The petitioner disputed the grounds for termination, asserted that the respondent’s defaults had caused delay, and stated that approximately 70% of the work was complete.

He sought a writ of mandamus concerning his representation dated 27 April 2026.

The respondent relied on Clause 25 of the agreement, which provides for conciliation and arbitration of disputes arising from the contract.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides for writ jurisdiction, but the Court held that it was not appropriate to examine this dispute, involving complex questions of fact, in that jurisdiction.

Clause 25 of the agreement provides for conciliation and arbitration of questions and claims arising out of or relating to the contract, including disputes arising after cancellation or termination; it also permits either party to seek appointment of an arbitrator without first pursuing conciliation.

The clause makes the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applicable.

The parties made opposing allegations about responsibility for delay and non-performance, and the petitioner challenged the justification for termination.

The Court considered these to be disputes about contractual performance and breach requiring resolution of complex facts, rather than matters suitable for determination under Article 226.

Given the dispute-resolution mechanism in Clause 25, the Court declined to examine the merits of the termination or the petitioner’s request for more time to complete the work.

It disposed of the writ petition, reserving the petitioner’s liberty to pursue any remedy available and permissible under Clause 25 of the agreement.