ORDER 1. In pursuance of the directions issued by the apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government. 2. I.A. No. 4038/2020, an application for urgent hearing is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. 3. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 4. In this petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19/06/2020 passed by respondent No. 2, by which, recovery of liquidated damage has been ordered as 10% of the contract amount. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a registered construction company and was allotted contract for package M.P. No. 4096 for construction/upgradation and maintenance of roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. The petitioner completed the construction work and completion certificate was issued to him on 15.5.2018. But due to delay on the part of department itself, the respondent No. 3 exercised powers under clause 27 of terms and conditions of the contract and dealt with the reason of delay exhaustively and took opinion from the consultants, who are the expert bodies supervising the construction work and given specific findings that the delay of 13 months and 13 days caused due to departmental reasons, therefore, penalty as ordered could not have been imposed on the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection with regard to availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner under clauses 24 and 25 of terms and conditions of the contract and submitted that the present petition is not maintainable. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the instant petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of alternative remedy placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Abl International Ltd. and anr v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 and Union of India and ors. v. Tantia Construction Private Limited reported in (2011) 5 SCC 697 to contend that the instant writ petition is maintainable. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 and Union of India and ors. v. Tantia Construction Private Limited reported in (2011) 5 SCC 697 to contend that the instant writ petition is maintainable. Even if there exists alternative remedy included in the arbitration clause as per terms and conditions of the contract, it is now well-established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court and that without exhausting such alternative remedy, a writ petition would not be maintainable. The constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the authorities. Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution. 8. In reply, Shri Vivek Khedkar has relied on the judgment of the apex Court delivered in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union Of India and ors. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 , in which, the apex Court has taken into consideration, the judgment of Abl International Ltd. (supra) and has held as under:- “No doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, 'normally', the Court would not exercise such a discretion: (i) The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. (ii) Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. (iii) If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. (iv) Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.” 9. (iii) If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. (iv) Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.” 9. Taking into consideration the fact that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under clauses 24 and 25 of general conditions of the contract and in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Joshi Technologies (supra), this Court refrains from entertaining the instant petition and relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy as available to him in accordance with law. The petitioner would be at liberty to file dispute under clause 24 within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed today. In case the dispute is filed by the petitioner within stipulated period, the competent authority shall decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 45 days thereafter and shall communicate the outcome of the same to the petitioner forthwith. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition stands disposed of.