IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1135 of 2008 (M/S) Madhava Hytech Engineers Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sri Pradeep Kilaru, 501 Panorama Mansion, Renuka Enclave, Raj Bhawan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ……. Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, P.W.D., Dehradun and two others. …. Respondents. Sri S. Dhulia, Senior Advocate, with Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents Date July 11, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri S. Dhulia, Senior Advocate, with Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- 1. To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed with the tender notice dated 5-7-2008 by which through corrigendum tender notice published on 26-6-08 has been amended and the partial work of completing the construction of bridge NH 58 KM 33 over Ganga Rever at Garur Chatti has been added. II. To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give the work to any person pursuant to the impugned tender dated 5-7-2008. III. Issue any other order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to take work from any person for the work of construction of 190 M Span Arch Steel Girder RCC Deck Slab Bridge over River Ganga KM 33 of NH 58 at Garur Chatti (Laxman Jhula) IV. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was awarded the contract work by the respondents. Due to delay on the part of the department, the work could not be completed within the stipulated period. According to the petitioner, due to delay the respondents are going to award part of the contract work to other persons, for which the tenders have been invited by the respondents. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that there is an arbitration clause in the contract. The petitioner does not dispute this fact. The petitioner has alternate remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim relief even prior to the arbitration proceedings. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act, However, according to the petitioner, the tenders have been invited by the respondents by 15th July and the tenders would be opened on 16th July 2008. The matter is urgent. The learned District Judge concerned is directed that if the application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be decided expeditiously as early as possible. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner today on payment of usual charges. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP