UTTAR PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. v. CG POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ANR.

p. 85 Copy page pinpoint

AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LTD. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

nominated by him in this behalf and his decision in writing shall be final, binding and conclusive. This submission shall be deemed to a submission on arbitration within the meaning of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification thereof The Arbitrator may from time to time with consent of the parties enlarge the time for making and publishing the award. Upon every or any such reference, the cost of an incidental to the reference and award respectively shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator, who shall be competent to determine the amount thereof or direct the same to be taxed as between solicitor and clients or as between party and party and to direct by whom and to whom and in what manner the same shall be borne and paid. Work under the contract shall, if reasonably, possible, continued during the Arbitration proceedings and no payments due to payable by the UPPTCL shall be withheld on account of such proceeding. In case refusal/neglect by such nominee Chairman, UPPTCL may nominate another person in his place.”

66Copy pinpoint66. Even though there is an arbitration clause, the Petitioner herein has not opposed the writ petition on the ground of existence of an arbitration clause. There is no whisper of any arbitration agreement in the Counter Affidavit filed by UPPTCL to the writ petition in the High Court. In any case, the existence of an arbitration clause does not debar the court from entertaining a writ petition.

67Copy pinpoint67. It is well settled that availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case. The High Court may entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, particularly (1) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or (iv) the vires of an Act is under challenge. Reference may be made to Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 22 and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors. V. Gayatri Construction Company and Ors, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172, cited on behalf of Respondent No.1. H

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 5 S.C.R.

68Copy pinpoint68. In Harbanslal Sahnia and Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107, this Court allowed the appeal from an order of the High Court dismissing a writ petition and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as also the impugned order of the Indian Oil Corporation terminating the dealership of the Appellants, notwithstanding the fact that the dealership agreement contained an arbitration clause.

69Copy pinpoint69. It is now well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be granted in a case arising out of contract. However, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, being discretionary, the High Courts usually refrain from entertaining a writ petition which involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact which may require analysis of evidence of witnesses. Monetary relief can also be granted in a writ petition.

70Copy pinpoint70. In this case, the action of UPPTCL in forcibly extracting building cess from the Respondent No.1 in respect of the first contract, solely on the basis of the CAG report, is in excess of power conferred on UPPTCL by law or in terms of the contract. In other words, UPPTCL has no power and authority and or jurisdiction to realize labour cess under the Cess Act in respect of the first contract by withholding dues in respect of other contracts and/or invoking a performance guarantee. There is no legal infirmity in the finding of the High Court that UPPTCL acted in excess of power by its acts impugned, when there was admittedly no assessment or levy of cess under the Cess Act.

71Copy pinpoint71. Even otherwise, the Cess Act and/or statutory rules framed thereunder prescribe the mode and manner of recovery of outstanding cess under the Cess Act. It is well settled that when statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done in that manner alone. UPPTCL could not have taken recourse to the methods adopted by it. The impugned communications have rightly been set aside.

72Copy pinpoint72. In our considered opinion, the judgment and order of the High G Court impugned does not call for inference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Nidhi Jain Special Leave Petition dismissed.