Writ jurisdiction and contract scope: a contractor cannot be forced to perform substantially altered bridge work under the original tender.

A contractor could not be compelled under the original bridge contract to execute an extended viaduct work where the design change materially altered and expanded the project beyond the agreed scope; the contract clause allowing quantity variation did not justify forcing performance of a substantially different, separately tendered work. The resulting termination on that basis was unjustified. The existence of an arbitration clause did not bar writ jurisdiction in every case, and the High Court could entertain the writ where illegality or manifest injustice was alleged. The appeal by the railway authorities therefore failed and the High Court's judgment stood.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the railway administration could compel the contractor to execute the extended viaduct work formed by a substantial alteration of the original bridge design under the existing contract. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the arbitration clause and the availability of an alternate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the railway administration could compel the contractor to execute the extended viaduct work formed by a substantial alteration of the original bridge design under the existing contract.

Analysis: The contractual arrangement related to a specific bridge work tendered and accepted on the original design and scope. The later design change converted the project into a materially different and expanded work, for which the railway itself floated a separate tender. The contractor's letter agreeing to undertake the varied work was construed as confined to the balance work under the original tender and not as consent to the entire extended project. The original contractual clause permitting increase or decrease in quantity did not justify forcing performance of a substantially altered and separately tendered project.

Conclusion: The contractor could not be compelled to execute the extended viaduct work under the original contract, and the termination based on that premise was unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the arbitration clause and the availability of an alternate remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an arbitration clause does not operate as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. Constitutional writ powers remain available where the dispute involves illegality or manifest injustice, and the court is not divested of jurisdiction merely because arbitration is contractually provided. On the facts, the High Court was competent to entertain the writ petition and correct the erroneous termination.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the arbitration clause and alternate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's judgment failed, and the dismissal of the railway authorities' appeal was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitration clause or alternate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction in every case, and a party cannot be forced to perform a contract that has been substantially altered beyond the original agreed scope.

---