The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sudhir Kumar Singh on 16 October, 2020
40. This exposition has been followed by this Court, and
has been adopted by three -judge Bench decisions of
this Court in State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar and Popatrao
Vynkatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra . The decision in
ABL International, cautions that the plenary power
under Article 226 must be used with circumspection
when other remedies have been provided by the
contract. But as a statement of principle, the
jurisdiction under Article 226 is not excluded in
contractual matters. Article 23.1 of the Development
Agreement in the present case mandates the parties to
wp_18129_2021
17 SN,J
resolve their disputes through an arbitration. However,
the presence of an arbitration clause within a contract
between a state instrumentality and a private party has
not acted as an absolute bar to availing remedies under
Article 226. If the state instrumentality violates its
constitutional mandate under Article 14 to act
fairly and reasonably, relief under the plenary
powers of the Article 226 of the Constitution
would lie. This principle was recognized in ABL
International: