Writ petitions should not resolve disputed contractual facts where an efficacious arbitration remedy exists.

NEPA Limited issued a tender for the sale of 1,503 MT of writing and printing paper. Madhu Anand Trading and Services was the highest bidder and deposited earnest money of ₹1 lakh and a security deposit of ₹57,61,700.

A sale order dated 8 August 2024 was followed by an amendment order dated 28 July 2025.

Under a separate arrangement, the petitioner was also to supply specified quantities of waste paper, old newspapers and coal. The petitioner relied on tender clause 13, which provided for adjustment of amounts due for such supplies against up to 50% of the amount payable for the paper being sold.

Alleging that NEPA made the adjustments late, the petitioner challenged NEPA’s notice dated 14 October 2025 terminating the sale orders and forfeiting the earnest money and security deposit.

The petitioner filed the writ petition in September 2026; the High Court declined to entertain it and left the merits open for the appropriate forum, including arbitration.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to decide the parties’ contractual dispute concerning delayed adjustments and the petitioner’s failure to lift the balance quantity

2. Whether the contractual arbitration clause provided an efficacious alternative remedy warranting the Court’s refusal to entertain the petition

Writ jurisdiction is not categorically unavailable in contractual matters; however, judicial review in contractual or commercial disputes is limited, and courts generally exercise restraint. Intervention may be justified where arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or bias is apparent, including where the record itself demonstrates unfair State action; disputed factual questions ordinarily make writ adjudication inappropriate.

The Court relied on Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for restraint in judicial review of contractual matters.

The tender’s arbitration clause referred disputes and differences concerning interpretation, claims, and the parties’ contractual rights and obligations to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended in 2015.

The dispute required determining whether the petitioner failed to lift the balance quantity within the extended period because of its own default or because NEPA delayed the adjustments contemplated by clause 13.

The Court considered that a fact-dependent contractual controversy, not one resolvable on the documents alone or suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction.

Although the petitioner relied on authorities recognizing that alternative remedies do not invariably bar writ relief, the Court found no basis to enter the disputed factual merits. It also noted the arbitration clause and that the petition was filed nearly a year after the impugned notice; the petitioner’s explanation was that it had made repeated representations and issued legal notices.

The petitioner remained at liberty to raise all questions on the merits before the appropriate forum, including through arbitration.