Writ Petition Not Maintainable, Exists Arbitration Clause To Look Into Disputed Facts: Calcutta High Court
The High Court of Calcutta has held that a writ petition would not be maintainable due to an alternative remedy in the form of arbitration when the petition involves disputed questions of facts that requires detailed assessment. The bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held that availability of alternative remedy is not always a bar to the maintainability of the...
The High Court of Calcutta has held that a writ petition would not be maintainable due to an alternative remedy in the form of arbitration when the petition involves disputed questions of facts that requires detailed assessment.
The bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held that availability of alternative remedy is not always a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition, however, it would be beyond the domain of the writ court to embark upon a detailed assessment of material and evidences, therefore, the Court would refer the dispute to arbitration for proper adjudication.
Facts
The petitioner, an institute of technology, sought the execution of a project under the "Din Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushaliya Yojana" scheme. The respondent, the State of West Bengal, approved the project with a sanctioned amount and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed. The scheme contemplated training of 880 students. The agreement provided for resolution of dispute through arbitration.
A dispute arose between the parties when the respondent withheld the payment against the second instalment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requesting the Court to direct the respondent to release the withheld payment.
Objections to maintainability
The respondent objected to the maintainability of the petition on the following grounds:
- That the writ petition is not maintainable due to the existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties.
- That the dispute between the parties involves disputed questions of facts which require elaborate examination of the material and evidences.
Analysis by the Court
The court considered the petitioner's reliance on Clause 4.1.2 of the MOU, ensuring timely release of financial grants, and Clause 5, specifying the sanction for skill development training. The petitioner claimed that despite meeting milestones, the second installment was withheld.
The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the arbitration clause in the contract. The court reviewed several judgments, emphasizing that the writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by certain tests, and interference is limited to cases of gross arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or violation of fundamental rights.
The Court held that a writ petition would not be maintainable due to an alternative remedy in the form of arbitration when the petition involves disputed questions of facts that requires detailed assessment.
The court found that the allegations involved disputed questions of fact requiring detailed assessment, making it inappropriate for the writ court to interfere. It dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable but allowed the parties to approach the appropriate Arbitral Tribunal or other forums for adjudication.
The court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving it open for the relevant forum to independently decide issues of law and fact.
Case Title: ILEAD Foundation v. State of West Bengal, WPA No. 25102 of 2022
Date: 17.11.2023
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Chayan Gupta, Mr. Rittick Chowdhury and Mr. Dwip Raj Basu
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Sk. Md. Galib and Mr. K.M. Hossain