Alternative remedy and arbitration can justify refusal of writ relief where a contractual dispute turns on disputed facts and no public law issue arises.

Existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction, but Article 226 relief remains discretionary and is ordinarily declined where the dispute is contractual, disputed facts require adjudication, and the parties have chosen arbitration. On the facts, the dealership agreement had ended on the death of a partner, no novation was proved, and the later arrangement was only ad hoc. The claim for restoration of the dealership or possession therefore could not be sustained, and interference with the refusal to entertain the writ petition was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an alternative remedy and an arbitration clause, and whether the appellant was entitled to restoration of the dealership or possession.

Analysis: The rule on alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction in every case, especially where public law elements, arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction are shown. However, the availability of Article 226 relief remains discretionary and ordinarily a writ is not entertained where disputed questions of fact arising from a contract require adjudication, particularly when the parties have chosen arbitration as the forum. Here, the parties had invoked arbitration and reached settlement, the dealership agreement had come to an end on the death of a partner, no novation of contract was established, and the later arrangement was only ad hoc. The claim for restoration of the dealership or possession could not be sustained on these facts, and the case did not justify interference with the High Court's refusal to entertain the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit for interference, and the claim for restoration of the dealership or possession was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Existence of an alternative remedy does not per se bar writ jurisdiction, but where the dispute arises out of contract, involves disputed facts, and no public law or jurisdictional infirmity is shown, the High Court may decline relief under Article 226.

---