107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26647-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 M/S GARG AND COMPANY ...Petitioner Versus HARYANA SHEHARI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present : Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the respondents. SUVIR SEHGAL, J. [ORAL] 1. While invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash Clause 25A of the Conditions of Contract No.2382 of 2016. Another prayer has been made by him for appointment of an independent and neutral arbitrator, preferably a former Judge of this Court, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. Mr. Alok Mittal, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a successful bidder pursuant to a notice inviting tender issued by the respondents for execution of work namely “Special repair of internal road with RMC specification in Sector 29-II U.E. Panipat”. A letter of GURPREET KAUR 2026.07.28 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26647-2023 (O&M) -2- allotment dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-1) was issued and an agreement was entered into between the parties which contains detailed conditions of contract. Counsel states that the petitioner successfully completed the work in 2017 but dues exceeding Rs.2.59 crores were not paid by the respondents. Counsel points out that the dispute has to be referred to an arbitrator, as provided under Clause 25A of the Conditions of Contract. He urges that a serving or a retired employee of the respondents is debarred from acting as an arbitrator under amended provisions of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Arbitration Act’). He emphasizes that the clause is, therefore, unconstitutional and invalid and a neutral arbitrator be appointed to determine the dispute. 3. Writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a short response. It has been submitted that remedy available to the petitioner is of filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act by complying with all the requirements as laid down in `Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrator by Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2003’ (Annexure R-1). It is also his argument that the petitioner has not exhausted the pre-reference mechanism provided under Clause 25A ibid nor has he invoked the arbitration Clause. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions, besides examining the documents referred to by them. 5. The relationship between the petitioner and respondents arises entirely out of a commercial contract. It is settled legal position that writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for resolving contractual GURPREET KAUR 2026.07.28 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26647-2023 (O&M) -3- disputes, especially when they involve auditing, measurements, checking final bills and calculating rate or items. Clause 25A provides for methodology for dispute resolution, which requires that the disputes must first be referred to the Executive Engineer in-charge. If a party is not satis- fied with the decision of the Executive Engineer, he can request for refer- ence of the dispute to an arbitrator. The scheme provided in Clause 25A cannot be permitted to be bypassed and an arbitrator cannot be appointed in exercise of the extraordinary powers of this Court. 6. Petitioner's argument that Clause 25A is invalid because of the provisions laid down in Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. This argument does not justify the filing of a writ petition. Arbitration Act is a complete code in itself and if a contractual clause provides for appointment of an ineligible arbitrator or for unilateral nomination of an arbitrator, the aggrieved contractor has a statutory remedy under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. He can approach the Court concerned under the aforesaid provision and seek appointment of an independent arbitrator. 7. It is a settled legal position that when a self-contained statutory framework exists to resolve arbitration related disputes, High Court must refrain from exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction. When a dispute flows from a purely commercial contract, a High Court should normally refuse to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 447, Apex Court has clarified that it is only in highly exceptional circumstances that a writ petition can be entertained in contractual matters. These include breach of fundamental rights, violation of GURPREET KAUR 2026.07.28 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26647-2023 (O&M) -4- principles of natural justice, challenge to constitutional validity of a statute or patent lack of jurisdiction. The remedy available to the petitioner is, therefore, to approach the competent Court by filing an appropriate applica- tion for appointment of an arbitrator. 8. As a result of the above discussion, present writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternate remedy for redressal of his grievance. 9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the petitioner and it will be open to the petitioner to take all pleas regarding the ineligibility of the arbitrator before the appropriate forum. 10. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. [SUVIR SEHGAL] JUDGE July 21, 2026 [DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA] gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2026.07.28 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document