JUDGMENT : Per Shantanu Kemkar, J ;- Heard on the question of admission. This petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.08.2012 (Annexure P-18) issued by the third respondent General Manager, M.P. Rural Road Development Authority asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the contract awarded to it be not cancelled. 2. According to the petitioner its prayer for foreclosure was wrongly rejected by the respondents vide Annexure P-4 and as such the proposed termination of contract by the impugned show cause notice is illegal. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was considerable delay on the part of the respondents in obtaining the permission of the Forest Department and as such there was delay and, therefore, for no fault of the petitioner, the impugned show cause notice has been issued. 3. The petitioner contends that the writ petition against the show cause notice is maintainable and the availability of alternative remedy is no bar as the rule is of discretion and not one of compulsion. In support the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., ( AIR 2003 SC 2120 ) = 2003 AIR SCW 126, Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai ( AIR 1999 SC 22 ) = 1998 AIR SCW 3345. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered the submissions made by him, we find no ground to entertain this petition in view of the fact that the petition is only against a show cause notice and from the averments made in the pleadings and having gone through the grounds raised in the writ petition, we find that it is not the case of the petitioner that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction. 5. In the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (supra) and Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. 5. In the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (supra) and Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has held that in an appropriate case inspite of the availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in atleast three contingencies (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (supra) the Supreme Court has further observed that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court having regard to the facts of the case has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain the writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies. 6. In the present case, we find that none of the three contingencies as referred above are available. The petitioner can put forward his case by submitting a reply to the impugned show cause notice, we are sure that if reply is submitted by the petitioner it will be considered appropriately. In the circumstances, there appears to be no justification for issue of writ of prohibition restraining the authority from proceeding further with the impugned show cause notice. As observed it is open for the petitioner to put forward its case before the authority and pursue the authority in accordance with law. Our view finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank and ors Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors ( AIR 2006 SC 1301 ). 7. We also find that in the contract document a clause is available providing for dispute redressal system and further provision of appeal against the decision of the competent authority of the respondents by way of arbitration by approaching to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. 8. 7. We also find that in the contract document a clause is available providing for dispute redressal system and further provision of appeal against the decision of the competent authority of the respondents by way of arbitration by approaching to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we find no ground to invoke writ jurisdiction so as to quash the show cause notice dated 31.08.2012. 9. As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.