Writ jurisdiction and constitutional challenge cannot be bypassed by directing arbitration when vires under Article 14 is in issue.

The High Court could not decline to examine the challenge to a revenue recovery certificate and the vires of Regulation 17(ii) merely by directing the appellant to pursue arbitration, because the constitutional challenge under Article 14 required judicial consideration on the merits. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition should not have been disposed of without addressing those substantive issues and that the matter required reconsideration by the High Court. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in declining to examine the challenge to the revenue recovery certificate and the vires of Regulation 17(ii) and in directing the appellant to pursue arbitration instead.

Analysis: The High Court disposed of the writ petition without addressing the appellant's substantive challenge to the recovery and the constitutional validity of Regulation 17(ii). The challenge to the regulation's vires under Article 14 required judicial examination, and the availability of arbitration did not justify bypassing those issues. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the High Court on the merits.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition was restored to the High Court for fresh disposal.

---