IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 225 of 2011 M ukesh Kumar ...…………. appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ...…………. Respondents Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) On the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is not a bar to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in case where there is violation of natural justice, the learned counsel for the appellant cited the judgment of the hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, reported in (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1. It was submitted that when there is a complain of violation of natural justice, as was done in the instant case, in asmuchas no notice of hearing was given before termination of the contract, on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy is available, the learned Judge by the order under appeal, ought not to have had 2 dismissed the writ petition, and relegated the appellant to the arbitrator. While, however making such submission, the learned counsel has not been able to bring to the notice of this court that in the event a contract is to be terminated the rules of natural justice requires the party terminating the contract to give a notice to the other contracting party. That being the situation, we see no reason to interfere with the order under appeal, in asmuchas while entering into the contract, the appellant on his own volition agreed that if any dispute arises out of the contract, the same will be adjudicated by the arbitrator. In the instant case, the dispute was whether the contract was rightly or wrongly terminated, and if wrongly terminated what are the consequences of such wrongful termination. We, accordingly dismiss the appeal. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 22.09.2011 Negi