Writ petition is not maintainable in contractual disputes involving complex, contested questions of fact.

The petitioner was awarded a 10-year fisheries lease (2023–2033) for the Sharda Sagar Reservoir following an e-tender.

An agreement was executed on 29.08.2023.

Shortly after, the petitioner’s operations were obstructed by forest authorities claiming that 683.88 hectares of the reservoir belonged to the Pilibhit Tiger Reserve core area where fishing is prohibited.

The petitioner also alleged the actual area was 5,765 hectares rather than the advertised 6,880 hectares.

Due to these discrepancies, the petitioner defaulted on installments.

Consequently, respondent no. 2 issued an order dated 28.09.2024 terminating the agreement, forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 67,70,825/-, and initiating recovery of Rs. 1,82,67,040/-.

The petitioner challenged this termination via writ petition under Article 226.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for a contractual dispute involving complex questions of fact and an existing arbitration clause.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection pending the invocation of an alternative remedy.

Article 226 is not a substitute for civil or arbitral remedies in purely contractual matters lacking a public law character.

Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India (2015): established that courts should relegate parties to provided settlement modes (like arbitration) when complex evidence or money claims are involved.

Union of India v. Puna Hinda (2021): holding that disputes regarding "how much" is payable are questions of fact better suited for arbitration.

State of UP & Anr. v. Ehsan and Anr. (2023): dictates that while the pendency of a writ does not bar its dismissal on alternative remedy grounds, "compelling reasons" such as serious factual disputes necessitate such dismissal.

The Court observed that the core of the dispute—the actual shortfall of the reservoir area and the resultant impact on the petitioner’s revenue—constituted "disputed questions of fact".

While the petitioner claimed a shortfall, the respondents argued the lease was on an "as-is-where-is basis" and that the petitioner had actively fished for thirteen months, meaning any adjustment of dues would require a detailed assessment of income earned and area utilized.

Unlike Harbanslal Sahania v. Indian Oil Corp, the court found no violation of natural justice or fundamental rights here, as multiple notices had been served before termination.

The Court concluded that these issues required oral evidence and cross-examination, which are beyond the scope of a writ court.

The petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the Court granted interim protection by staying the impugned orders for a period of six weeks.

The Court clarified that it expressed no binding opinion on the merits of the breach.