Article 226 writs cannot bypass arbitration and civil remedies in private contract disputes with disputed facts.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will not ordinarily be used to enforce rights arising purely from private contracts where the dispute turns on serious factual controversies and an adequate alternative remedy exists. The Court held that the cancellation of the building contracts involved administrative action within a contractual setting, but certiorari was inappropriate because the matter could not be resolved on affidavits. Mandamus was also unavailable since the asserted rights arose from contract rather than a public duty. As arbitration had become operative on termination, and a civil suit for damages was also available, the writ petition was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable to challenge cancellation of building contracts governed by an arbitration clause, and whether the petitioner could bypass the contractual and civil remedies by seeking certiorari, mandamus, or other directions.

Analysis: The dispute arose out of private building contracts and turned on serious and conflicting questions of fact which could not be satisfactorily resolved on affidavits in writ proceedings. The contract contained an arbitration clause that became operative on termination of the contracts, and the petitioner had an available alternative remedy by reference to arbitration. The Court further held that the impugned cancellation orders were administrative in character and that certiorari was not the appropriate remedy. Mandamus was also unavailable because the rights asserted flowed from contract and not from a public or statutory duty, and the existence of an adequate alternative remedy barred its exercise in the circumstances. The Court additionally held that a suit for damages, and in any event contractual arbitration, afforded an adequate civil remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was required to pursue the contractual and civil remedies available under the agreement and the general law.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in a contractual dispute involving disputed facts and an effective alternative remedy, and the challenge to the cancellation of the contracts failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will not ordinarily be exercised to enforce rights arising purely from private contract where the dispute is factual in nature and an adequate alternative remedy, including arbitration or a civil action, is available.

---