The existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement does not ipso facto render a writ petition not maintainable. The High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances, particularly if the case relates to the enforcement of fundamental rights, failure of principles of justice, or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

The petitioner company, having been awarded a contract by the respondents for 34 construction works titled "Proven of Otm Accn Phase II at Rupa" in the state of Arunachal Pradesh at a sum of Rs. 10,98,58,900/- under the acceptance letter dated 12.06.2013, has filed this writ petition stating grievance against the acts and omissions on the part of the respondents in not according extension of time for completion of work, in not releasing the pending bills, and in not considering its representations.

2. The petitioner has averred that though the aforesaid contract was awarded under the acceptance letter dated 12.06.2013 but the sites were handed over much later and the site plans were approved even later. It is averred that the petitioner started the construction work in the remote site at Rupa, which is surrounded by hilly terrain with no infrastructure and road connectivity, which made the work "cumbersome and time consuming". It is further averred that the climatic condition of the location was also quite tough and difficult and there were reduced working hours; and all these factors led to difficulties and delay in execution of the work. With these nature averments, the petitioner has alleged that the delay has been caused for the reasons beyond its control but the authorities concerned, instead of granting extension, were threatening to cancel the contract and were not even making the payment of the pending running account bills. The summation of its case by the petitioner is as under:-

"The facts of the case in brief are that pursuant to a tender process the petitioner was allotted the Acceptance Letter dated 12.06.13 for the work 'Proven of Otm Accn Phase II at Rupa' at a sum of Rs. 10,98,58,900/- for 34 construction work, Thereafter the respondent authorities handed over two work site for building construction in October, 2013 and rest of the building sites were handed over to the petitioner after a substantial delay, only in November, 2014 and June, 2015. Further, the site plan was approved by the respondent authorities only on 10.04.14. Immediately, the petitioner started the construction work in the remote work site in Rupa surrounded by hill terrain in the State of Arunachal Pradesh where there is no proper infrastructure and roadways connecting the work site causing difficulties in transporting goods, materials, equipments etc. to the site which made the work cumbersome and time consuming. That apart, the climatic condition of the said location is far different from other States. There during the summers the morning light comes at about 7 A.M. and it sets at about 5 P.M. and during the winters the morning light come at about 8/9 a.m. and it sets at about 4 p.m. and thus the workable hours in the said area is only 5 to 6 hours in comparison to other locations where it is minimum 8 hours. Further there is no proper electricity and water supply in that area and skilled labours are also not available. The materials have to be procured from other states and transported to the work site by first unloading in Bhalukpong and then transporting in small vehicles to the work site due to deplorable road conditions. Incorporating all the aforesaid facts the petitioner intimated the authorities vide letter dated 10.03.2015 about the reasons for delay in execution of the work. However, the authorities without considering the matter in its right perspective warned the petitioner vide letter dated 09.07.15 of cancelling the work order if the work was not expedited and completed as per the time schedule. Subsequently, after much persuasion the respondent authorities vide letter dated 16.12.15 granted extension of time till 31.07.16. And during this period there were several correspondences between the petitioner and the respondent authorities regarding procurement of materials and reinforcement of labours, which the petitioner complied as per their satisfaction. Thereafter the petitioner again submitted a