JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India appearing for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the termination letter dated 09.11.2021, by which the contract given to the petitioner for improvement of crust and strengthening work of Raipur-Durg 4-Lane including improvement of junction in Km. 281.00 to Km. 307.600 of N.H. 53 (Old N.H. 6) in Chhattisgarh State has been terminated.

3. By filing a return, respondent Nos. 1 to 3, amongst others, stated that Article 26 of the Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC Agreement) provides for Dispute Resolution System. At paragraph 13, amongst others, it is stated as follows:

“That, as per clause 26.3 appropriate remedy efficacious remedy for the petitioner company in the circumstances of the instant case would be to get the matter referred to the Arbitral Tribunal for decision from the date of impugned occurr