Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not exercisable for contractual disputes requiring detailed factual evidence.

The Petitioner was awarded a contract by the CPWD for the construction of internal roads at the 33rd Bn. ITBP, Sonapur, Guwahati

The Petitioner failed to complete the work, citing a lack of permissions from the Forest Department and a ban by the District Administration

Consequently, the CPWD issued a show-cause notice and subsequently terminated the contract and invoked the Bank Guarantee

The Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking to quash the termination and show-cause notice, and for a refund of the performance guarantee

1. Whether the failure to perform the contract was due to a breach by the Petitioner or circumstances beyond their control

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when the dispute involves complex factual determinations and a contractual dispute resolution mechanism exists

Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), 2014, which provides a comprehensive Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC) and Arbitration framework for all disputes arising out of the contract, including termination

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in bona fide litigation before a forum that lacks jurisdiction when computing the period of limitation for a subsequent proceeding

The court determined that the crux of the matter—whether the Petitioner was restricted by conditions beyond its control—is a disputed question of fact requiring evidence to be led

In its reasoning, the court observed that such factual inquiries are not suited for summary writ proceedings under Article 226

Referring to Clause 25 of the GCC, the court noted that the parties had already agreed upon a specific forum (DRC followed by Arbitration) to resolve such grievances

Since the agreement provides an efficacious alternative remedy and the issues require detailed factual examination, the court found it inappropriate to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction

The Court directed that the dismissal shall not prejudice the Petitioner’s right to initiate proceedings under Clause 25 of the GCC

Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the Court ordered that the period from the filing of the writ (26.04.2021) until the date of the judgment shall be excluded from the limitation period calculation for any future proceedings