Alok Kumar Choubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 1874 of 2019, Judgment Date: Jan 05, 2021

Whether or not in a particular case the writ court should entertain a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution despite availability of alternative remedy, would always depend on the fact situation of a given case. Seven well-recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution are:

(i) where the writ petition has been filed for enforcement of fundamental rights;

(ii) where there has been violation of principle of natural justice;

(iii) where the order of proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction;

(iv) where the vires of any Act is under challenge;

(v) where availing of alternative remedy subjects a person to very lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment;

(vi) where the writ petition can be entertained despite alternative remedy if the question raised is purely legal one, there being no dispute on facts; &

(vii) where State or its intermediary in a contractual matter acts against public good/interest unjustly, unfairly, unreasonably and arbitrarily.

When the facts are not in dispute and it has been established to the satisfaction of the Court that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and contrary to the relevant stipulations in the agreement and the contract data, the alternative remedy of dispute resolution system by way of an application to the competent authority and thereafter to the appellate authority and then thereafter to the Arbitration Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, cannot be taken as an efficacious alternative remedy, particularly when Section 17 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 bars the Tribunal from granting any interim relief.

The contract between the parties is to be interpreted giving the actual meaning to the words contained in the contract and it is not permissible for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. It is to be interpreted in such a way that its terms may not be varied. The contract has to be interpreted without any outside aid. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract, as it may affect the interest of either of the parties adversely. - Relied - (2019) 19 SCC 9, Adani Power (Mundra) Limited vs. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and others.

Alok Kumar Choubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others