Writ jurisdiction cannot enforce disputed contractual payment claims when arbitration and factual determination are required

A writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable to enforce disputed monetary claims arising from a non-statutory contract where liability depends on contested measurements, factual verification and the genuineness of survey material. The existence of an agreed dispute-resolution clause, including arbitration, points the parties to the contractual forum rather than writ jurisdiction, and the High Court should not fix liability on disputed facts. The passage of time did not create an enforceable right to bypass the contractual mechanism, so the claimant had to pursue the agreed forum for determination of the payment claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking payment under a contract involving disputed measurements and monetary claims was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the contract provided for arbitration.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a purely contractual arrangement and turned on contested facts regarding the extent of work executed, the authenticity and effect of the joint survey report, and the amount, if any, payable. In such matters, where no statutory flavour attaches to the contract and the parties have an agreed mode of dispute resolution, the proper course is ordinarily to pursue the contractual remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction. The availability of an arbitration mechanism, coupled with the need for factual determination based on measurements and evidence, made the controversy unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings. The passage of time did not create an enforceable entitlement to have the High Court fix liability on the basis of disputed reports.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for determination of the contractual money claim, and the assessee-like claimant was required to pursue the agreed contractual forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable to enforce disputed monetary claims arising from a non-statutory contract, especially where the contract provides arbitration or another agreed mechanism for resolving factual and contractual disputes.

---