The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised when there is an alternative efficacious remedy, such as a civil suit, and when the matter involves disputed questions of fact.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus for compliance of the Ordinance promulgated on 23.9.1992 the interest on delayed payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertakings and for issuance of such writ order or direction as the Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the petitioner it is a small scale industrial Undertaking within the meaning of Section 23 Sub-clause (3) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. It is registered as a small scale industry. It is the case of the petitioner that the supplied ACSR Conductors vide two orders No. HH-1/3374QH-V1979 and HH-1/3381/QH-1/1980 for supply of 1200 Km. of conductors of the value of Rs. 82,29,600/- and 800 K.M. of the value of Rs. 36,46,400/-. As per Clause 6 of the purchase order Nos. 3374 and 3381, 100% payment was to be made with full taxes and duties within 7 days from the submission of bills. According to the petitioner supply of the conductors was made in between 16.9.1992 to 17.2.1993. As agreed between the parties, the bills were to be cleared within 7 days from the receipt of the material but the respondent failed to pay the same on due dates and so caused a considerable delay in making payments and this way the petitioner-company suffered grave financial loss by way of interest. According to the petitioner, the Company suffered a total loss of Rs. 18,50,239.49 paise which amount became due till 31.1.1994 and this interest continue to accrue to the petitioner from month to month at the deemed rate of interest till date. Vide Ordinance No. 15 of 1992 petitioner-Company being a small scale Industrial Undertaking is entitled to interest on account of delayed payment and so a request was made to the respondent-Board to pay the amount due on the basis of Ordinance. Since they failed to make payment a writ petition was filed which was disposed of by the Bench vide order dated 27.9.1994 with a direction to the Board to consider the writ petition to be a representation regarding claim for the amount of interest due on the delayed payments and decide the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the Board no doubt considered the petitioners writ petition as representation but has erroneously declined the same vide order Annexure P-7, which is wholly illegal biased and so deserves to be set aside. Since a duty has been cast upon the respondent to comply with the mandate of the Ordinance which has now become an Act a direction by the Court is the only appropriate remedy available to the petitioner. Hence, this present writ petition.

2. Respondent No. 1-Haryana State Electricity Board has filed the written statement and has taken few preliminary objections that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that on the same cause of action petitioner filed an earlier writ petition No. 2914 of 1994 permitting the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Vide order dated 9.11.1994 petitioner had been permitted to initiate fresh proceedings in the Court of competent jurisdiction and not that the petitioner could file another petition without impugning the order passed by the Board on 2.11.1994. As per purchase order the supply of the material was to be made within a period of one month from the receipt of the purchase order whereas the supply in the present case commenced much later and so the petitioner is legally not entitled to any interest on the basis of Ordinance. Otherwise too, the purchase orders are earlier to the coming into enforcement of the Ordinance/Act. Similarly, writ petition raises disputed question of fact which can only be adjudicated by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and in any case a writ petition cannot be termed to be an alternative remedy to a civil suit. On merit, it was stated that the plea raised is wholly frivolous and devoid of merit. According to the answering respondent the petition