Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for disputed contractual claims where an arbitration remedy exists.

The petitioner No. 1, a registered cooperative society, obtained a work order from the West Bengal State Marketing Board for construction of a pucca stall with a two-storied foundation at Khochabari Hat under the R.K.V.Y. Scheme, pursuant to N.I.T. No. 39/2011–2012 and an agreement dated 14 May 2012.

The tender amount was ₹32,66,865.

The petitioners claimed that the work was completed on 16 August 2016 and the remaining electrical work on 15 February 2018, but ₹17,00,000 remained unpaid.

The respondents contended that the work was completed beyond the stipulated and extended periods and that compensation was consequently imposed at 0.0182% per day of the tender amount.

After deductions, ₹6,78,345 was paid as the final amount, which the respondents asserted was accepted in full and final settlement.

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing payment of ₹17,00,000 with interest.

The writ petition was initially dismissed for default on 14 January 2025; the Court subsequently condoned the 51-day delay, recalled the dismissal order, and restored the writ petition.

The agreement contained an arbitration clause referring contractual disputes to arbitration.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus directing payment of ₹17,00,000 with interest, notwithstanding the respondents’ contention that the final payment had been made after deducting compensation.

Whether the disputed question concerning the date and manner of completion of the contractual work could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the existence of the contractual arbitration clause constituted an alternative remedy requiring the petitioners to pursue arbitration.

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious alternative remedy is available, particularly where the dispute involves disputed questions of fact.

It relied on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1, which recognises that the High Court may nevertheless entertain a writ petition despite an alternative remedy in cases involving enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, proceedings wholly without jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of legislation or subordinate rules.

The Court also applied the contractual arbitration clause, under which disputes relating to the contract, execution or failure to execute the work were referable to arbitration.

The Court found that completion of the work within the stipulated or extended period was disputed.

The respondents asserted that the extension expired on 16 August 2016 and that electrical work continued until 15 February 2018, justifying compensation and payment of only ₹6,78,345; the petitioners disputed the applicability of that deduction.

Resolving this controversy required examination of contractual obligations, the extension of time, the completion dates, the compensation decision, and the alleged acceptance of final payment.

Such disputed factual and contractual matters could not appropriately be determined in writ proceedings.

Since the agreement expressly provided for arbitration and none of the exceptional circumstances identified in Whirlpool was established, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction on the merits.

The dismissal did not preclude the petitioners from invoking arbitration; if arbitration was pursued and an arbitrator appointed, the dispute was to be decided on its merits without being influenced by the observations in the judgment.

Any interim order stood vacated.