Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited and Anr. v. Vardan Linkers and Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 500 and in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corpn. v. Diamond and Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470 wherein paragraphs 19 and 20, which is being quoted hereunder as: 19. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that matters/disputes relating to contract cannot be agitated nor terms of the contract can be enforced through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the writ court cannot be a forum to seek any relief based on terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement by the parties. [Vide Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh and State of U.P. v. Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd.] 20. In Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil this Court held that a writ cannot lie to resolve a disputed question of fact, particularly to interpret the disputed terms of a contract observing as under: (SCC pp. 298-99, paras 10-11) "10. ... The interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject-matter of a writ petition. ... If a term of a contract is violated, ordinarily the remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the High Court that the contractor was seeking enforcement of a statutory contract. .... 11. ...The contract between the parties is in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory contract. The disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That is a matter for adjudication by a civil court or in arbitration if provided for in the contract. ...The contractor should have relegated to other remedies." By relying upon the judgment, Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the dispute is in the nature of commercial, and arbitration clause by way of clause 19 of the agreement is already there, in that view of the matter, this Court may not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) In view of the well settled principle of law with regard to the arbitration clause and as discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corpn (supra), this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;