Disputes arising from contract termination must be resolved through arbitration, not writ jurisdiction, especially when complicated questions of fact are present.

JUDGMENT :

P. SAM KOSHY, J.

1. The instant Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Clause 15 of LETTERS PATENT Act assailing the order dated 18.10.2022 in Writ Petition No.27246 of 2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (for short ‘the impugned order’), and aggrieved only by the operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as upholding the notice of termination of contract issued by respondent No.3, dated 10.06.2022.

2. Heard Mr.A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.Pillix Law Firm, for the appellant and Mr.B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of Mr. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the appellant herein had preferred a writ petition before this Court, viz., Writ Petition No.27246 of 2022, seeking for the following relief:

“19. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent herein in issuing termination notice Vide No.W.Con.148/A/4271/GNT-GTL/EWR-II (Vol.II), date 10.06.2022, contrary to the procedure laid down under the Indian Railways Standard General Conditions of Contract, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and also in gross violation of the principles of natural justice; and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to follow Clause 17 of the Indian Standard General Conditions Contract and set aside the termination Notice Vide No.W.Con.148/A/4271/GNT-GTL/EWR- II(Vol.II), date 10.06.2022, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. A plain reading of the aforesaid prayer makes it amply clear that the above writ petition was filed only assailing the termination notice dated 10.06.2022 issued by respondent No.3. There was no other relief as such sought for by the appellant in the said writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that grievance of the appellant in the course of adjudication of the writ petition is that, the learned Single Judge after appreciating the contentions put forth on either side, reached to the conclusion that the contentions put forth on either side are highly disputed questions of fact. Another finding of fact given by the learned Single Judge was that there being an arbitration clause entered into between the appellant and the respondents, the disputes are one which needs to be decided by invoking arbitration proceedings. Likewise, it was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge after appreciating the pleadings given by either side also reached to the conclusion that these are disputes which cannot be adjudicated upon by exercising writ jurisdiction, which in other words mean that the Writ Court in the course of deciding the matter would find it difficult to decide the nature of dispute raised in the writ petition, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, having reached to the conclusion of the factual matrix of there being highly disputed questions of fact, the learned Single Judge ought not to have held that there were no irregularities on the part of respondent No.3 in terminating the contract vide order dated 10.06.2022.

6. According to learned Senior Counsel for the a