The High Court emphasizes arbitration as a prerequisite for potential claims, asserting that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked without exhausting statutory remedies.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE nd ON THE 2 OF JULY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 12887 of 2024 M/S SHUKLA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH ITS PARTNER GAGAN SHUKLA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Harshad Bahrani - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Utkarsh Tikhe - Advocate for the respondent [R-3].

ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking following reliefs:-

(a). That, in view of the facts narrated above, the impugned action of the respondent no.5 at Annexure P/1 may kindly be set-aside and further appropriate directions may kindly be. issued to the respondent to resume the work of petitioner immediately.

(b). That, any other suitable relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be grant in favor of the petitioner.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent had pointed out that as per terms and conditions of S.O.R. Based HLRT (Food) Tender condition no.26.14, there is an arbitration clause and without invoking the aforesaid clause the petitioner has directly approached before this Court in the present petition, therefore, it is not maintainable.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI

3. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the matter of M/s Healers Lab, Lucknow, U.P. vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Health Services Corporation Ltd. Bhopal and Another passed in W.P. No.11145/2020 dated 08.10.2020 by Division Bench of this Court and has argued that since there exists an efficacious alternative statutory remedy for resolving the dispute, the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

4. Encountered with the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner had tried to convince this Court by placing reliance in the matter of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 and has argued that since no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners nor any show-cause notice was issued or any chance was given to file any response, the order has been passed which is per se illegal and, therefore, the writ in such circumstances would be maintainable and alternate remedy would not be an absolute bar. It is also submitted that from the security deposit of the petitioner, the respondents have started deducting the amount of commission for the period for which the petitioner has not worked and they had to take work from other contractor has also not refunded the security amount as on date the agreement between the parties has already come to end.

5. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. The dispute in this matter is directly arising out of and relates to a contract entered into by and between the parties. The prayer of the petitioner has characteristic of money claim for which the Writ Court can grant relief in Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI very rare cases and this Court do not find any exceptional circumstances as to why the writ jurisdiction of the High Court ought to be invoked in the given case and as their exists arbitration clause in the general terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the petitioner and respondents, this Court is not inclined to cause any indulgence in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The petitioner is relegated back to avail the remedy as per Clause 26.14 of the General Conditions.

7. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is applicable to the present case as therein after taking note of various decisions of the Apex Court, the parties were relegated to avail the remedy of arbitration.

8. In view of the above, the present petition is hereby disposed of.