Writ petition not maintainable as statutory remedies are available under arbitration law.

Per Narendra Kumar Vyas, Judge

05/06 /2025

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for following relief:-

(i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the form of mandamus directing restoration of status quo ante to place the petitioner in the same position in which it was prior to the encashment of the Performance Bank Guarantee No. 0999518BG1000493 for Rs. 167.46 crore by:-

(a) Directing respondent No. 1 to return Rs. 167.46 crores being the proceeds of the bank guarantee No. 0999518BG1000493 to respondent No. 4; and (b) Directing respondent No. 4 to issue another identical bank guarantee for Rs. 167.46 crores to be kept valid till the resolution of disputes between the parties.

(ii) In the alternative, issue a writ or order or direction in the form of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to deposit Rs. 167.46 crores, being the proceeds of the bank guarantee No. 0999518BG1000493 invoked by it in an interest-bearing account till the final resolution of disputes between the parties.

(iii) Issue any such writ, order or direction and grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The brief fact as reflected from record is that respondent No.

1/Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHIPS) issued Request for Proposal (RFP) inviting bids for the purpose of Selection of Master System Integrator (MSI) for BharatNet Phase-II Project in the State of Chhattisgarh. During existence of commercial contract, a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 (CHIPS), therefore, a writ petition bearing WPC No. 3351/2024 was filed by the petitioner wherein learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.07.2024 has granted interim protection in favour of petitioner restraining the respondents from encashing the performance bank guarantee of the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025 by re-deligating the parties to approach the Commercial Court.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act, 1996”) wherein the Commercial Court vide order dated 03.05.2025 has ordered that as purely an interim measure, a status quo is maintained with regard to invocation of performance bank guarantee and also directed the respondents to file reply. After filing of reply by the respondents, the said application was disposed of by the Commercial Court vide order dated 06.05.2025 and vacated the status quo granted on 03.05.2025 with regard to invocation of performance bank guarantee. Thereafter, the proceeding for encashment of the bank guarantee has been initiated which has necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court.

4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the conduct of respondent No. 1 is wholly fraudulent, highhanded misleading the Court’s order of restraining the respondents to vacate the interim protection granted to the petitioner and efforts were made by the respondents to invoke the performance bank guarantee which is nothing but arbitrariness on the part of the respondents as the respondents have misused the power conferred upon them. Thus, he would pray for grant of interim relief at this juncture.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents as well as State opposing the submission made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has remedy under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 or remedy under the Chhattisgarh