Zaki Ullah Khan, J.— It appears that under an Agreement dated 27.8.2010 entered into between the respondent no.2 and the petitioner, the petitioner was to provide a Mini-Bus to the respondent no.2 on the terms and conditions, as mentioned in the said Agreement. By the order dated 16.1.2013 passed by the respondent no.2, the said Agreement has been terminated and the security money of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited. The petitioner has, thereupon, filed the present Writ Petition before this Court, interalia, praying that said order dated 16.1.2013 be quashed. We have heard Shri S.C. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava holding brief for Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava holding brief for Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that under Clause 34 of the Agreement it is open to the petitioner to take proceedings for arbitration in regard to the alleged dispute. Clause 34 is as under: "34. Anubandh men paryukt kisi shabd abhivyakti shart ya upbandh ke arth nirvachan ya ardhanwayan ke sambandh se kisi paksh ke adhikaron ya dayitvon ke sambandh men ya patrkaron ke madhya kisi bhugtan ke sambandh men ya anya kisi prakar ke mamle men koi vivad sanshay matbhed utpann hone par uttar pradesh rajya sambhagiya parivahan nigam ke kisi adhikari ko aik matra madhyasthta (arbitration) hetu aisa visay sandarbhit kiya jayega aur aise madhyasth ka nirnay/anirnay (award) pakshkaron ke bich antim nivaran awam badhyakari hoga. Aise sabhi sandarbhon men Artibration Act 1996 ke pravidhan avam uske antargat nirmit niyam nistaran hetu lagu honge. Iske sakshya swarup pakshkaron ne aaj dinank 27.8.10 ko vilekh ko hastakshrit avam nispadit kiya." It is, thus, evident that the petitioner has remedy under the aforesaid Clause 34 for taking proceedings for arbitration. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the view that it will be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy available to him for taking proceedings for arbitration. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner. _____________