Judgment :- Petitioner – Azhaganparai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 15. 2003 and the order of the 3rd Respondent dated 20.6.2003 in respect of Claim No.1/2000 and consequently direct the Respondents to settle the claim of Petitioner Co-operative Bank which is assessed at Rs.84,37,7325. 2. Petitioner Bank - Azhaganparai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited is getting financial assistance from the District Central Co-operative Bank, Kanyakumari and implementing the schemes and policy of the Government through the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The properties of the Petitioner Cooperative Bank including the jewels are insured [Burglary & House Breaking Policy] before the Respondents Insurance Company and Petitioner Bank is paying the premium amount as per the conditions of the Insurance Policy through Master Policy holder viz., Kanyakumari District Central Co-operative Bank, Nagercoil. There was an incident of burglary / theft in the Bank on the night of 24. 1999 and the rolling shutter of the Bank and the lock were broken by gas welding by Burglars. It is alleged that 23517 gms and 600 mgs of gold jewels and cash of Rs.90,234,25 cash were stolen and the total value of the property burgled was estimated at Rs.83,49,525. Regarding burglary, case was registered before Mandaikadu Police Station in Cr.No.21/1999 under Sec.457 and 380 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against 11 accused and 1st accused one Arumugam who was continuing as one of the Director of Petitioner Co-operative Bank. 3. Case of the Petitioner is that as per the conditions of Burglary & House Breaking Policy, Petitioner Bank is entitled for the entire claim for the loss assessed at Rs.84,37,7325. By invoking Policy Exclusion No. (ii), Respondents 2 and 3 repudiated the claim stating that the claim falls under the Exclusion Clause (ii) which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 4. Opposing the Petition on merits, Respondents have filed counter inter alia contending that the contract referred to by the Writ Petitioner is that Contract of Insurance and in view of the availability of efficacious alternative remedy before the Civil Court, Writ Petition is not maintainable. 5. Challenging the impugned orders, Mr. 4. Opposing the Petition on merits, Respondents have filed counter inter alia contending that the contract referred to by the Writ Petitioner is that Contract of Insurance and in view of the availability of efficacious alternative remedy before the Civil Court, Writ Petition is not maintainable. 5. Challenging the impugned orders, Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the FIR would clearly show that the house breaking / burglary was in the mid-night and while so, Respondents cannot invoke Exclusion Clause (ii). Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that Respondents cannot interpret the Exclusion Clause (ii) as the interpretation of Exclusion Clause (ii) is to safeguard the interest of the Insurance Company to avoid false claim and such protection Clause enumerated to prevent the false claim cannot be used by the Insurance Company in genuine claims. It was further submitted that house breaking and theft took place during mid-night and when only one of the accused happened to be a Director of the Petitioner Bank cannot be the reason for invoking the Exclusion Clause (ii). 6. Reiterating the averments in the counter-affidavit, Mr. Nageswaran, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that Writ Petition is not maintainable to enforce the contract. It was further submitted that when Insurance Company has repudiated the contract, it involves question of fact to be adjudicated and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 7. Properties of Petitioner Co-operative Bank - viz., (i) On-stock-in-trade; (ii) Jewels kept in Iron safe and safety room pledged by various members (iii) Safety room and Cash counter were all insured before the Respondents Insurance Company. Petitioner Bank is paying the premium amount promptly as per the conditions of the Insurance Policy through Master Policy holder viz., Kanyakumari District Central Co-operative Bank, Nagercoil. 8. On being notified about the alleged loss, Respondents appointed a Surveyor to assess the extent of loss. M/s.Srivatsan Surveyors Private Limited issued their survey report on 011. 2002 and on 211. 2002. After the receipt of survey reports, Respondents repudiated the claim of the Bank by invoking Exclusion Clause (ii). .9. 8. On being notified about the alleged loss, Respondents appointed a Surveyor to assess the extent of loss. M/s.Srivatsan Surveyors Private Limited issued their survey report on 011. 2002 and on 211. 2002. After the receipt of survey reports, Respondents repudiated the claim of the Bank by invoking Exclusion Clause (ii). .9. Respondents Insurance Company mainly relies on the Exclusion Clause (ii) of the Policy which reads as under:- ."Exclusions (ii): Loss or damage where any inmate or member of the insureds household or of his business staff of any other person lawfully in the premises in the business is concerned in actual theft or damage to any of the article or premises or where such loss or damage have been expedited or any way assisted or brought about by any such person or persons." 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly submitted that Respondents are not correct in invoking Exclusion Clause (ii). Learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly submitted that the Respondents have hastily invoked Exclusion Clause (ii). It was further submitted that the Secretary of the Co-operative Bank is the custodian of the lock and key jointly with a Senior clerk of the Bank and the 1st accused Arumugam involved was not the custodian of the Bank and he was not holding or authorized to hold lock and key of the Bank and therefore, Respondents were not justified in invoking Exclusion Clause (ii). 11. Contending that when the repudiation of the claim is illegal and unjust, under Art. 226 of Constitution Writ jurisdiction can be invoked, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon JT 2001 (1) SC 10 [LIC and others v. Smt. Asha Goel and another]. The said case arose out of the claim of policy holders legal representatives for enforcing the liability under life policy. Observing that if the contract entered between the parties provide for alternative forum for resolution of disputes, then the parties are to approach the forum agreed by them and the High Court in Writ jurisdiction should not permit them to bypass the agreed forum of dispute resolution, Supreme Court held as under:- 11. The position that emerges from the discussions in the decided cases is that ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for mere enforcement of a claim under a contract of insurance. The position that emerges from the discussions in the decided cases is that ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for mere enforcement of a claim under a contract of insurance. Where an insurer has repudiated the claim, in case such a writ petition is filed the High Court has to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the dispute raised and the nature of the inquiry necessary to be made for determination of the questions raised and other relevant factors before taking a decision whether it should entertain the writ petition or reject it as not maintainable. It has also to be kept in mind that in case an insured or nominee of the deceased insured is refused relief merely on the ground that the claim relates to contractual rights and obligations and he/she is driven to a long drawn litigation in the civil court, it will cause serious prejudice to the claimant/other beneficiaries of the policy. The pros and cons of the matter in the context of the fact situation of the case should be carefully weighed and appropriate decision should be taken. In a case where claim by an insured or a nominee is repudiated raising a serious dispute and the Court finds the dispute to be a bona fide one which requires oral and documentary evidence for its determination then the appropriate remedy is a civil suit and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Similarly, where a plea of fraud is pleaded by the insurer and on examination is found prima facie to have merit and oral and documentary evidence may become necessary for determination of the issue raised then a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy. In the above decision, Supreme Court has categorically held pros and cons of the matter in the factual situation of the case should be carefully weighed and appropriate decision should be taken. 12. In the instant case the Insurer has repudiated the claim by invoking Exclusion Clause (ii). While we consider the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there are factual aspects to be determined viz., (i) in the burglary on the night of 24. 12. In the instant case the Insurer has repudiated the claim by invoking Exclusion Clause (ii). While we consider the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there are factual aspects to be determined viz., (i) in the burglary on the night of 24. 1999 extent of involvement of first accused Arumugam who was then continuing as Director of the Petitioner Bank; (ii) responsibility of the said Arumugam in functioning of the Bank; (iii) invoking Exclusion Clause (ii) and repudiation of contract by the Insurer was justified or not; (iv) what extent the liability of the Insurer in the claim. The above factual questions can be determined only before the appropriate forum i.e. Civil Court where both parties will have opportunity of adducing evidence. 13. Factual dispute appears to be bonafide which requires oral and documentary evidence for determination and the appropriate remedy is Civil Suit and not Writ Petition under Art. 226 of Constitution of India. 14. The issue relating to entertaining Writ Petition when alternative remedy is available was examined by the Supreme Court in several cases. In U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264 ), the Supreme Court has held as under: "11. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction or discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. ....... 13. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. ....... 13. Another Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, ( AIR 1964 SC 1006 ), held that the remedy provided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defence legitimately open in such actions. The power to give relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary power. Similar view has been reiterated in N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar, ( AIR 1959 SC 422 ), Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar, ( AIR 1965 SC 1321 ), Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, ( AIR 1984 SC 653 ), S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, ( AIR 1988 SC 616 ), Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, ( AIR 1995 SC 1715 ), Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, ( AIR 2000 SC 2573 ), A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (2000) 7 SCC 695 ), L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P. (2001) 6 SCC 634 ), Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509 ), Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 484 ) and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 1 SCC 72 )." 15. Observing that when efficacious alternative remedy is available, High Court in Writ jurisdiction should not permit the parties to bypass the correct forum of dispute resolution in JT 2001 (1) SC 10 [LIC and others v. Smt. Asha Goel and another], the Supreme Court held as follows:- 10. .... This Court from time to time disapproved of a High Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters of enforcement of contractual rights and obligation particularly where the claim by one party is contested by the other and adjudication of the dispute requires inquiry into facts. We may notice a few such cases; Mohammed Hanif v. The State of Assam [ (1969) 2 SCC 782 ]; Banchhanidhi Rath v. The State of Orissa and Ors. We may notice a few such cases; Mohammed Hanif v. The State of Assam [ (1969) 2 SCC 782 ]; Banchhanidhi Rath v. The State of Orissa and Ors. [ (1972) 4 SCC 781 ]; Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta v. Collector, Jabalpur and others [ (1980) 4 SCC 556 ]; Food Corporation of India and others v. Jagannath Dutta and others [(1993 (Suppl.3) SCC 635] and State of H.P. v. Raja Mahendra Pal and others [JT 1999 (2) SC 604 = (1999) 4 SCC 43 ]. 16. Having regard to the factual disputes involved, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However liberty is given to the Writ Petitioner Bank to file Civil Suit before the appropriate forum within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. When such Civil Suit is filed, the period during which Writ Petition was pending shall be excluded from computing the period of limitation as per Sec.14 of Limitation Act. No costs.