Honble SHETHNA, J.–These special appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and order as both of them are arising out of common judgment and order dated 25.9.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions on various grounds.

(2). Learned counsel Mr. Shrimali for the appellants vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error in dismissing the writ petitions only on the ground of alternative remedy. He submitted that though the petitioners had alternative remedy available to them before the Civil Court by way of civil suit, the said remedy could not be said to be efficacious remedy. Therefore, it cannot be said to be alternative remedy. He submitted that the remedy should not only be alternative, but it should be efficacious. He also submitted that both the writ petitions were of the year 1994 and pending before this Court for nearly 6 years, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to dismiss both the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.

(3). It is clear from the record of the writ petition as well as reply filed by the other side and the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the relationship between the appellants and respondents were purely contractual relationship. It is very well settled by catena of decisions of Honble Supreme Court that in case of contractual matters, ordinarily the writ petition should not be entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the following decisions are relevant:

(i) State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raja Mahendra Pal and Ors. (1);

(ii) Ram Badan Rai and Ors. vs. Union of India and ors. (2);

(iii) U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors. (3);

(iv) Food Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Jagannath Dutta & Ors. (4);

(v) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr vs. Dolly Das (5).

(4). Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of Five Honble Judges of this Court in the case of Gopi Chand Teli vs. State of Rajasthan (6).

(5). In the latest judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxman Singh Verma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(7) and in unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s. Marudhara Conductors and Anr. vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and Anr. (8), decided on 6.5.98 are on this point.

(6). In view of the above judgments of the Honble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, it is not possible for us to take a different view of the matter than the view taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing both the writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy. It cannot be said that the remedy of civil suit is not an alternative remedy for the petitioners. In our considered opinion, the alternative remedy of civil Suit before the competent Civil Court is efficacious remedy which should have been availed of by the appellants petitioners instead of approaching this Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(7). Apart from that under the contract there was an arbitration clause itself, therefore, if the petitioners were of the opinion that it would take long time in getting the civil suit decided then alteast, they should have opted for arbitration proceedings as provided under the Arbitration Clause mentioned in the contract itself. In the case of M/s. Shreeji Industries, Jodhpur vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. (9), it has been held by this Court that where remedy by civil suit or arbitration is available to the petitioners, then this Court would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(8). At this stage, a request was made by learned Counsel Shri Shrimali for the appellants that this Court may direct the appellants to avail the alternative remedy of arbitration. From the operative part of the common judgment and order passed by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document