IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.762 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, 3rd Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Secretary Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, 3rd Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Engineer in Chief (North), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Darbhanga. 5. The Superintending Engineer (Western Koshi Canal Circle), Madhubani. 6. The Executive Engineer, Western Kosi Canal Division no.1, Banipatti Camp Rahika, Disrict Madhubani. Versus M/S RAM BARAI SINGH and Company, a partnership firm, through its partner Smt. Punita Singh W/O Ramji Singh, resident of village Jogbani, P.S Jogbani, District Araria. ----------- 7 12.1.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and in the light of the averments made in the limitation petition, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. This L.P.A. arises out of an order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10173 of 2008. The contention raised before the learned Single Judge by the respondents herein was for payment of cost of extended work including the labour charge which was denied by the official respondents who are appellants in the present appeal. In view of allowing the writ application by the learned Single Judge, the official respondents have preferred this appeal. Having heard counsel for the parties and on a perusal of materials available on record, we are of the opinion that as in the agreement between the parties, an arbitration clause had been provided and the respondents writ petitioner had moved this Court without availing the remedy of arbitration clause, the writ petition 2 itself was not maintainable. The refusal of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a case where the parties are bound by an earlier agreement providing for arbitration by now is a well settled law. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 22 wherein the Apex Court had held as follows:- “Further, the contract in question contains a clause providing inter alia for settlement of disputes by reference to arbitration. The arbitrators can decide both questions of fact as well as questions of law. When the contract itself provides for a mode of settlement of disputes arising from the contract, there is no reason why the parties should not follow and adopt that remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The existence of an effective alternative remedy- in this case, provided in the contract itself- is a good ground for the court to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.” The same view in fact has been reiterated by the Apex Court even in the case of ABL International Ltd. and another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553, where it had been held as follows:- “It is well known that if the parties to a dispute had agreed to settle their dispute by arbitration and if there is an agreement in that regard, the courts will not permit recourse to any other remedy without invoking the remedy by way of arbitration, unless of course both the parties to the dispute agree on another mode of dispute resolution.” Thus in the light of settled law, we are of the firm 3 view that the writ application was itself not maintainable. Under the above circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge with a liberty to the respondents herein to agitate the matter before the Arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the agreement. With the above observation, this L.P.A. is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside, and the writ application C.W.J.C. No.10173 of 2008 is also dismissed. Abhay Kumar (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)