Writ jurisdiction is unavailable for contractual disputes involving contested facts and an alternative arbitration remedy.

The Petitioner, a registered partnership firm, was awarded a contract by the Respondent Railway authorities for bridge and drain construction in the Ahmednagar–Beed–Parli Vaidyanath project via a Letter of Acceptance dated 30.04.2024

The contract value was subsequently increased from approximately ₹37.46 crores to ₹54.85 crores through supplemental agreements, and the completion deadline was extended to 31.03.2026

On 13.11.2025, the Respondents issued a "part termination" notice, followed by a final termination notice on 02.12.2025, alleging slow progress and failure to meet milestones

The Petitioner challenged these notices under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging they were arbitrary, violated principles of natural justice, and ignored the fact that the Respondents had unauthorizedly "offloaded" works to third parties

The Respondents contested the maintainability of the petition, citing the existence of an arbitration clause (Clauses 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of Contract) and the presence of disputed factual questions

1. Whether the Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable in light of the arbitration clause and the purely contractual nature of the dispute

2. Whether the termination of the contract violated the principles of natural justice

3. Whether the dispute involves contested questions of fact that necessitate adjudication by an arbitral tribunal rather than a Writ Court

The Court primarily applied the principle that in pure contractual matters involving State instrumentalities, the extraordinary remedy of a writ is unavailable unless a "public law" element is demonstrated

The Court relied on State of U.P. & Ors. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. (1996), which established that Article 226 is not intended to supplant existing remedies like arbitration provided within a contract

The Court further applied Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Kurien E. Kalathil & Ors. (2000), holding that disputes regarding payments and contractual interpretations belong to the realm of private law

While acknowledging Union of India & Ors. v. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2011), the Court clarified that the exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, particularly where complex factual disputes exist

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of natural justice, as the record showed multiple show-cause notices (7-day and 48-hour notices), progress review meetings, and missed target dates over several months

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s absence from the country did not invalidate these notices

Regarding maintainability, the Court determined that the case involved "overwhelmingly" contested factual questions—such as the actual percentage of work completed, the justification for offloading works, and the validity of payment claims—which cannot be resolved without recording evidence or scrutinizing technical site registers

The Court held that the dispute was a private law matter with no "public law" element, as it stemmed entirely from the 17.08.2024 agreement

Finally, the Court noted that the Petitioner had an efficacious remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to seek interim protection for site materials

The Court ruled that it would be inappropriate to bypass the agreed dispute resolution framework for essentially contractual grievances

However, to enable the Petitioner to initiate arbitration, the Court directed the Respondents not to forfeit or encash the security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), or Bank Guarantee for a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order

All other interim protections were vacated