Writ jurisdiction is not maintainable for contractual disputes where alternative efficacious remedies are available.

The Petitioner was awarded Contract No. GEMC-511687707936475 on 28.01.2025 for the supply of five Solitaire 86-inch Interactive Panels with CPUs to various government schools, totaling ₹49,97,500/-

The Petitioner contended that the contract was fully executed and that completion certificates were issued by the respective school principals (Respondents 8–12)

However, Respondent No. 5 cancelled the contract via an order dated 02.09.2025, communicated on 04.09.2025, based on technical reports alleging deficiencies

The Petitioner challenged this cancellation and the non-payment of dues, alleging the state’s action was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for the enforcement of contractual rights and recovery of dues when an alternative remedy is available

2. Whether the dispute regarding the cancellation of a contract after alleged execution involves disputed questions of fact requiring evidentiary examination

The Court applied the established principle that disputes relating to the enforcement of contractual rights and recovery of dues ordinarily fall within the realm of civil disputes and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

the doctrine that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is intended for the enforcement of statutory or constitutional rights, not for the adjudication of contractual claims that require detailed evidentiary examination or where an efficacious alternative remedy—such as a civil suit or arbitration—is available

The Court reasoned that the core of the Petitioner's grievance was a purely contractual dispute regarding the execution of work and the validity of contract cancellation

It observed that determining the Petitioner’s entitlement to payment and the extent of the Respondents' liability would require a detailed examination of GeM contractual terms and evidence regarding equipment quality

The Court noted that such factual adjudications are the domain of competent civil courts or the specific forums provided under the contract

Finding that the agreement contained an arbitration clause which the Petitioner had failed to invoke, and that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated to bypass alternative remedies, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction

It held that the Petitioner must take recourse to the jurisdictional civil court or the contractual arbitration mechanism for redressal

Liberty was granted to the Petitioner to avail such remedies in accordance with the law, with the Court clarifying that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the contractual claims