Writ petition for recovery of dues is not maintainable where disputed questions of fact necessitate arbitration.

The petitioner was awarded a contract by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for the "Operation & Comprehensive Maintenance of Electro-Mechanical Service for Usof Sites in Panna SSA"

The petitioner claimed to have completed the work and submitted bills totaling Rs. 10,46,048.00, supported by completion certificates

Upon non-payment, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking payment, 18% interest, and compensation

The respondents filed a return disputing the completion of work, alleging deficiencies, and claiming that the endorsed bills submitted by the petitioner were fabricated

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when there exist disputed questions of fact regarding the execution of a contract and allegations of fabrication of documents

2. Whether the petitioner is required to exhaust the alternative remedy of arbitration as provided in the agreement

The court applied the principle of judicial restraint in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which holds that High Courts should generally not adjudicate upon "disputed questions of fact" arising out of contractual disputes

The court further emphasized the doctrine of alternative remedy, specifically the enforcement of an arbitration clause within a commercial contract to resolve factual disagreements

The Court examined the "Payment Terms" of the contract, which required a multi-stage certification process involving an S.D.E. In-charge and a subsequent scrutiny by a Divisional Engineer

The Court found that the petitioner failed to produce documents demonstrating the second stage of certification required by the agreement

Since the respondents explicitly disputed the execution of work and alleged that the evidence provided by the petitioner was fabricated, the Court determined that these were complex factual disputes

Consequently, the Court reasoned that such matters cannot be adjudicated in summary writ proceedings and must instead be resolved through the mechanism agreed upon by the parties: the arbitration clause

The Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause and directed respondents to deal with any such request for arbitration within 30 days of the request being made