[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S. Prabha Exim Pvt. Ltd. Through Its ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7764
1 WP-10376-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10376 of 2026
M/S. PRABHA EXIM PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRETOR AKASH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Garg, Senior Counsel with Shri Bhavya Garg,
counsel for petitioner.
Shri Pradyumna Kibe, counsel for respondent No.1/State on advance
notice.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the
respondent whereby the contract of the petitioner has been rescinded.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that said order was
passed without following the principle of natural justice and the order has
been passed arbitrarily as the ground raised by him in reply to the show-
cause notice has not been considered.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent raised a preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7764
2 WP-10376-2026
availability of alternative remedy of raising dispute under clause 12 of the
contract which provides for dispute resolution system. He further submits
that order was passed by the competent authority after issuing show-cause
notice to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no absolute bar for
this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India even if the contract provides for arbitration clause. In support of his
submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Supreme Court
in the case of Unitech Limited and others VS. Telangana State Industrial
Infrastructure, 2021(16) SCC 35.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to
reproduce clause 12 of the contract, which reads as under :
12. Dispute Resolution System
"12.1 No dispute can be raised except before the Competent
Authority as defined in Contract Data in writing giving full
description and grounds of dispute. It is clarified that merely
recording protest while accepting measurement and/or payment
shall not be taken as raising a dispute.
12.2 No dispute can be raised after 45 days of its first occurrence.
Any: dispute raised after expiry of 45 days of its first occurrence
shall not be entertained and the Employer shall not be liable for
claims arising out of such dispute.
12.3 The Competent Authority shall decide the matter within 45
days.
12.4 Appeal against the order of the Competent Authority can be
preferred within 30 days to the Appellate Authority as defined in
the Contract Data. The Appellate Authority shall decide the
dispute within 45 days.
12.5 Appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority can be
preferred before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal
constituted under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran
Adhiniyam, 1983.
12.6 The Contractor shall have to continue execution of the Works
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7764
3 WP-10376-2026
with due diligence notwithstanding pendency of a dispute before
any authority or forum."
Clause 12 provides for alternative and efficacious remedy of raising
dispute before the competent authority and thereafter the First Appeal and
then a reference to the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.
From the facts, it is manifest that the authority who had passed the
order was a competent authority. The order was passed after issuing show-
cause notice and inviting reply. The other contention raised by counsel for
petitioner that respondents have failed to provide documents and site in time,
the same is disputed, therefore the same cannot be considered under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment passed in the case of
Unitech(supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case.
We are not oblivious of the legal position that there is no absolute bar
for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
despite availability of alternative redressal forum. However, in the facts of
the present case we are not inclined to interfere in a contractual matter where
remedy of dispute resolution system is provided. In view of aforesaid, the
petition is not entertained on the ground of availability of alternate
efficacious remedy and same stands dismissed. However, any observation
made by us, would not prejudice the points raised by the petitioner, if any, in
case the alternative remedy is resorted.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
MK
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7764
4 WP-10376-2026
