Writ jurisdiction and contractual pricing disputes: SC refused interference and directed parties to resolve the matter through arbitration.

A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable in a purely contractual gas supply dispute governed by an arbitration clause, because a commercially complex pricing controversy should ordinarily be resolved through the agreed arbitral remedy rather than judicial review. The Court also found no material to show that the pricing decision was arbitrary or unreasonable, noting that the final price arrangements were mutually agreed and that courts do not substitute their own view in commercial or economic policy matters absent perversity, illegality, or extraneous considerations. The impugned order was set aside and the writ petition dismissed, leaving the dispute to arbitration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in a dispute arising out of a commercial gas supply contract governed by an arbitration clause. (ii) Whether the appellant's decision on future gas pricing was arbitrary so as to justify a writ direction to negotiate and fix price.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in a dispute arising out of a commercial gas supply contract governed by an arbitration clause.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a private commercial arrangement for supply of gas, and the contract itself contained a mechanism for resolution of disputes by arbitration. Where the controversy is contractual and involves a complex pricing mechanism, judicial review is ordinarily not the appropriate forum, particularly when an efficacious alternative remedy is available. The existence of an arbitration clause reinforced the need to relegate the parties to the agreed dispute-resolution process.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the respondent ought to have been relegated to arbitration.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's decision on future gas pricing was arbitrary so as to justify a writ direction to negotiate and fix price.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant had offered a uniform pooled-price structure to existing buyers and that the respondent did not accept that arrangement, instead insisting on a different negotiated framework and a price review clause. The final price-side arrangements were mutually agreed, and the material did not support a finding that the appellant had acted arbitrarily or unreasonably. In matters involving commercial and economic policy choices, the Court does not substitute its own view unless the decision is shown to be perverse, unlawful, or taken for extraneous considerations.

Conclusion: The allegation of arbitrariness was rejected and no writ direction to negotiate or fix price could be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the respondent's writ petition was dismissed, and the contractual dispute was left to be pursued through the agreed arbitral remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not interfere in a purely contractual and commercially complex pricing dispute where the contract provides an effective arbitral remedy, unless the challenged action discloses a clear public law element or demonstrable arbitrariness.

---