HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33283 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Jawad Tariq, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent - National Highway Authority of India (NHAI). 2. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to appoint a new arbitrator qua Arbitration Case No. 130 of 2019 (New Number 1300/2021); Computerised No. C202113000001300; titled as Sri Adnan Akbar Qayyum Vs Union of India & Others pending before Arbitral Tribunal/ Additional Commissioner-II, Moradabad; or alternatively; b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to extend the time period of Respondent No. 4 for deciding the Arbitration Case No. 130 of 2019 (New Number 1300/2021); Computerised No. C202113000001300; titled as Sri Adnan Akbar Qayyum Vs Union of India & Others; c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for deciding Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jawad Tariq Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Akanksha Gaur, C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra Sri Adnan Akbar Qayyum .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the Arbitration Case No. 130 of 2019 (New Number 1300/2021); Computerised No. C202113000001300; titled as Sri Adnan Akbar Qayyum Vs Union of India & Others pending under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956, Village Chaudharpur, District Amroha as expeditiously as possible and within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court without granting any unnecessary adjournment." 3. At the very outset, learned counsels for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of filing an application under Section 29A(4) and 29A(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, without availing the statutory remedies provided under the Act, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioner to invoke the remedy as may be available to him under law. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 6, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 33283 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad