Allahabad High Court
AMIR AZAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Summary
Petitioner Amir Azam filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking a certiorari to quash an order dated 18‑April‑2022 passed by an arbitrator/district magistrate and a mandamus directing the respondents to decide arbitration case No. 1622/2022 on merit. The respondents contended that the petition was barred by delay and laches and that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge the order. The Court examined the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and noted the availability of the alternative remedy under the Act. It held that the presence of a specific statutory remedy precludes the use of a writ jurisdiction for the same grievance. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of it, leaving the petitioner free to approach the appropriate forum under the Act.
Issues considered
- The writ petition is maintainable despite alleged delay and laches.
- The petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- arbitration
- Section 34
- delay
- laches
- alternative remedy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16206 of 2026
Amir Azam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Virendra Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra,
Vaibhav Tripathi
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State respondents and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :-
" i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated 18.4.2022 (as Annexure-3
to this writ petition) passed by the Arbitrator/District
Magistrate Ghaziabad respondent no.3.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to decide the arbitration case
no.1622/2022 Amir Azam vs. Chairman Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways on merit after giving full opportunity
of hearing to both parties."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has raised
an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on two
fold submissions. Firstly, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed
on the ground of delay and latches as no satisfactory and plausible
explanation has been averred in the writ petition to meet out the delay and
laches. Secondly, the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of
WRIC No. 16206 of 2026
2
filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act, 1996') against the order impugned dated
18.04.2022 and once the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the
petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the statutory forum.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances and the relief as prayed for, we
are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition as the petitioner has
an efficacious alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance. However,
we leave it open to the petitioner to invoke the efficacious remedy before
the competent court in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid leave, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 6, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…