Writ jurisdiction should not resolve disputed contractual facts where an agreed alternative remedy exists.

Western Railway awarded the petitioner a contract for 25 KV AC OHE work between Katwara and Jhabua, valued at approximately ₹12 crore.

After extensions, the completion date was fixed as 30 September 2026.

The Railway issued a seven-day notice on 29 September 2026 alleging inadequate progress and, following the petitioner’s reply, issued a 48-hour termination notice on 9 October 2026.

The petitioner alleged that delays resulted from the Railway’s failure to provide clear work sites and drawings; the Railway attributed the delay to the petitioner’s inadequate deployment and failure to procure materials.

The petitioner sought consideration of its reply, a personal hearing, and protection against termination and encashment of its performance bank guarantee.

Article 226 permits judicial review of public-authority action, but a contractual alternative remedy and disputes requiring detailed factual inquiry are relevant grounds for declining writ intervention.

Clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) provides for conciliation of disputes where the contract value is ₹50 crore or less.

Clauses 19 and 25 were relied upon concerning the contractor’s obligations, Clause 17A(iii) concerning extensions of time, and Clause 62 concerning termination procedure.

A bank guarantee is an independent contract between the bank and beneficiary; its encashment is ordinarily not restrained absent clear fraud or irretrievable injustice, as discussed with reference to Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2025 INSC 640.

The Court held that the contract provided an agreed conciliation remedy under Clause 63 and that deciding whether the Railway failed to provide sites and drawings, or the petitioner failed to progress the work and procure materials, would require examination of technical and project records.

Those disputed factual questions were unsuitable for determination in writ proceedings.

The Railway’s communications, particularly its letter of 28 September 2026, identified the alleged defaults and required work to proceed on available sites; the Court therefore found that reasons had been given and that the written replies had been considered.

The contract did not require a court-like oral hearing before termination, and the Court found no resulting breach of natural justice.

The petitioner neither pleaded nor established fraud or irretrievable injustice to justify restraining the bank guarantee’s encashment.

The Court also declined to prevent the Railway from exercising contractual powers on a public infrastructure project.

It refused protection against encashment of the bank guarantee or security deposit.

There was no order as to costs, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.