JUDGMENT : This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction of the like nature for enforcement of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder. 2. The petitioner herein functions in the name and style of M/s T.L. Constructions came into contractual agreement with the respondents for construction works at the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Chare, District-Tuensang, Nagaland. The respondent No.3 acting as construction agency for and on behalf of respondent No.2 floated Tender Notice bearing NO.RITES/CP/TC/NVS/TUENSANG/PH-A/Pkg-II/2005/2R on 17-02-2005 for construction of Phase-(Pkg-II) Buildings for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Chare, District-Tuensang, Nagaland. The petitioner participated in the tender bid. 3. The petitioner was successful in the tender bid for construction of school building, kitchen and dining external development work, construction of UG tank, tube well, drainage system, water supply system, road work open surface drains, internal and external electrical works. The scope of work of the contract is mentioned in the Price Bid Document (Volume-II) of the tender document of the contract. The contract work was for a total price of Rs.4,36,01,897.26/-. Agreement was executed between respondent No.3 and the petitioner’s firm M/s T.L. Constructions on 22-08-2005. However, when the petitioner’s firm started the work as per the agreement, there was delay in the completion of the work due to several attending factors beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner’s firm was granted extension of time on several occasions. The factors mainly hampering the progress of the work was cited as increased insurgency activities in Tuensang District. In the year 2006, one staff of RITES Ltd was kidnapped from the project site. At another point of time, an insurgent group camped at the construction site forcing the workers to desert the site resulting in dislocation of the project. There were multiple demands of extortion which also interrupted the work. Added to this problems, were the road conditions which was not favourable for smooth transportation of materials resulting in the delay of the work. The respondent No.3 granted time to the petitioner’s firm for completion of work as many as eight times. Despite all these, the works could not be completed. 4. Added to this problems, were the road conditions which was not favourable for smooth transportation of materials resulting in the delay of the work. The respondent No.3 granted time to the petitioner’s firm for completion of work as many as eight times. Despite all these, the works could not be completed. 4. Besides the work of the petitioner, construction of Phase-A buildings for JNV at Tuensang District, apart from the works awarded to the petitioner’s firm, which included boys and girls hostels, residential quarters, etc. were awarded to other contractors and it is learnt that the construction of these buildings and quarters have also stopped by the contractors due to unworkable rates. 5. Respondent No.4 vide letter No.RITES/CO/CP/NVS-Tuensang Ph A/3592/Folder/09 dated 25-11-2010 forwarded the re-revised Preliminary Estimate to the respondent No.2 incorporating the cost/details required for completion of the construction of Phase-A works at JNV, Tuensang including that of additional works desired by the Principal, JNV-Tuensnag. Consequently, the respondent No.2 by letter No.F.2-55(135)2001-NVS (W)/243 dated 29-09-2011 approved the revised estimates. This approval also included the additional works which were required as per the site at the work/project awarded to the petitioner. The three additional works were awarded to the petitioner which included playfield, boundary wall fencing and retaining wall. These additional works were sanctioned vide letter dated 29-09-2011 at the cost of Rs. 36.02 lakhs, Rs. 42.46 lakhs and Rs. 96.22 lakhs, respectively. Copies of the letter dated 25-11.2010 and 29-09-2011 are reproduced herein below:- “RITES LTD. RITES BHAWAN 1, Sector-29, Gurgaon-122001 (INDIA) Tel: 0124-2571666, Fax: 0124-2571660 NO: RITES/CO/CP/NVS - Tuensang Ph/A/3592-53/Folder/09 Dated: 25.11.2010 General Manager (Construction) Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, A-28, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048 By Courier Sub : Construction of Phase A Buildings for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Distt. Tuensang, (Nagaland) Ref : NVS Letter No. F.2-55(13)/2001-NVS (W)/Phase-A/141 dated 30.07.2010 Dear Sir, As desired enclosed please find herewith modified Re-RPE incorporating all cost/details essentially required for completion of the subject work as well as additional work desired by the Principle JNV-Tuensang. As the work at site is in full swing it is requested to kindly accord approval of the Re-RPE so that work at sire can be carried out smoothly. Thanking You Yours faithfully (Rakesh Kumar Raizada) Dy General Manager (Civil)/Coordination - NVS” “No.F.2-55(135)2001-NVS(W)/243 …..26.09.2011 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Raizada Dy. As the work at site is in full swing it is requested to kindly accord approval of the Re-RPE so that work at sire can be carried out smoothly. Thanking You Yours faithfully (Rakesh Kumar Raizada) Dy General Manager (Civil)/Coordination - NVS” “No.F.2-55(135)2001-NVS(W)/243 …..26.09.2011 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Raizada Dy. General Manager (Coordn./NVS), RITES Ltd., Plot No. 144, Sector - 44 Gurgaon, Haryana - 122 003 … :SH: C/o of Phase-A Works at JNV Tuensang (Nagaland) - Regarding Approval of Re- R.P.E. …: … 3-1/NVS(SHR)Tuensang/4806 … 21.12.2010 …, The Re-Revised Preliminary Estimate for the above work submitted vide letter under reference has been examined and I am directed to convey Revised A/A & E/S amounting to Rs.1310.93 Lacs (Rupees Thirteen Crores Ten lacs Ninety Three thousand only) against the revised A/A & E/S of Rs.937.36 lacs dated 16.05.2005 accorded by the Samiti earlier, as per the details given in annexure (Enclosed herewith). The Construction Agency is requested to complete the work in all respect within the revised sanctioned amount and stipulated period and submit the final settlement account in the prescribed proforma along with details. The expenditure is debatable under the centralized provision “Constn. Work (Plan)” 2011-12. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority, NVS, Hqrs. New Delhi. … Encl: As above” SH:C/o of Phase-A Works at JNV Tuensang (Nagaland)-Regarding Approval of Re-R.P.E. Sl.No Details of Works Amount of Approved RPE Amount of Re-RPE as per actual 1 School Building Package-1(Civil+Elect)=Rs.39 1.31 lacs Package-II (Civil+ Elect)=Rs.436.02 lacs (i/c development work) Package-1 (Civil+Elect)=332.60 lacs Package-II (Civil+Elect)=Rs.378.9 9 lacs Substituted Item Cost Rs.53.02. lacs 2 Dormitory 6 nos i/c 6nos W/R 3 Kitchen & Dining Block 4 Principal Residence 1no. 5 Type-III Staff Qtrs-8 nos 6 Type-II Staf Qtrs-4 nos. 7 Type-I Staff Qtrs-1 nos 8 Development Works 9 Development Work as per Actual i/c OH Tank … 83.00 10 Play Field … 36.02 11 Boundary Wall Fencing … 42.46 12 Retaining Walls … 96.22 82 7.33 1157.04 Add 3% Contingencies 24.82 34.71 85 2.15 1191.75 Add 10%CA Charges 85.21 119.18 93 7.36 1310.93 6. Thereafter, respondent No.4 by letter No. RITES/CO/CP/NVS-Tuensang(Pkg-II)/3592-53/Bill/09 dated 06-01-2012, informed the petitioner’s firm that the respondent No.2 has approved the revised cost vide letter dated 29-09-2011 and a copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner’s firm. Thereafter, respondent No.4 by letter No. RITES/CO/CP/NVS-Tuensang(Pkg-II)/3592-53/Bill/09 dated 06-01-2012, informed the petitioner’s firm that the respondent No.2 has approved the revised cost vide letter dated 29-09-2011 and a copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner’s firm. Further, the firm was asked to expedite the work and at the same time not to execute any work beyond the cost approved by the respondent No.2. Accordingly, the petitioner’s firm carried out the additional works required as per site condition and as per the price approved vide letter 29-09-2011 and communicated to the petitioner’s firm vide letter dated 06-01-2012 i.e. the additional works as stated earlier, included the play field, boundary wall fencing and retaining walls which is depicted in serial Nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the letter dated 29-09-2011. The letter dated 06-01-2012 which directed the petitioner to complete the work is annexed as Annexure-7 which is reproduced herein below: “RITES LTD RITES BHAWAN - II Plot No. 144, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122003, Haryana (INDIA) Tel: 0124-2728326, Fax: 0124-2728371 NO RITES/CO/CP/NVS-Tuensang (Pkg-II)/3592-53/Bill/09 Dated: 06.01.2012 By Speed Post/Fax 03862-232281 M/s L. Constructions, C-26/3, Half Nagarjan, Dimapur, Nagaland. Sub: Construction of Phase-A (Pkg-II) Building for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Chare Distt. Tuensang (Nagaland) Dear Sir, This is to inform you that NVS vide their letter No. F.2-55(135)2001-NVS(W)/243 dated 29.09.2011 has approved the revised cost of the work copy of the same is being forwarded to you and also for your reference and records. You are hereby advised to expedite the completion of work and extension on account of non approval of revised cost shall be entertained. You are also advised not to execute any work beyond the cost approved by NVS without prior approval of RITES. Thanking You Yours faithfully (Rakesh Kumar Raizada) Sr. Dy. General Manager (Civil)/Coordination - NVS” 7. In terms of the said offer and acceptance, the petitioner executed the additional works. However, the respondent No.3 by letter NO. RITES/CO/CP/NVS-Tuensang (Pkg-II/3592-53/Gen/09 dated 12-08-2013, unilaterally terminated the contract awarded to the petitioner’s firm on the ground that the work has not been completed within the stipulated period. It was also informed that the earnest money and security deposits stands forfeited. The said letter also mentioned that the petitioner’s firm shall be entitled to be paid only for the works actually performed under the contract upto the date of termination as certified by the Deputy General Manager (Civil), RITES/Tuensang (Nagaland). It was also informed that the earnest money and security deposits stands forfeited. The said letter also mentioned that the petitioner’s firm shall be entitled to be paid only for the works actually performed under the contract upto the date of termination as certified by the Deputy General Manager (Civil), RITES/Tuensang (Nagaland). The petitioner’s firm was also asked to report to Shri Rajen Singha, Deputy General Manager at JNV, Tuensang site office for preparation of an inventory of complete/incomplete works. Accordingly, an inventory was prepared as per which the petitioner’s firm was entitled to be paid Rs. 23,78,174/-for works completed. 8. While the petitioner was chasing the files for payment of the completion of the additional works, he was served with a letter No.RITES/CP/NVS-Tuensang (Pkg-II)/Genl-09 dated 29-03-2016 under Section-2, Clause-3 of the Contract Agreement stating that the petitioner’s firm was to deposit before the respondent No.3 a sum of Rs.2,18,60,493/-. The said amount was towards payment of security deposits and the expenditure to be incurred to complete the remaining unexecuted buildings. 9. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 81(K)/2016 before this Court praying for quashing of the letter dated 29-03-2016 and for direction to the respondents therein to pay the petitioner’s firm a sum of Rs. 23,78,174/-. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioner’s firm filed a suit in the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Tuensang which was nomenclatured as Civil Suit No.1/2016. The suit was for a decree to be paid for the three additional works completed as per the revised rate contained in the letter dated 29-09-2011 and for setting aside the termination letter dated 12-08-2013. 10. This Court had disposed the writ petition W.P. (C) No. 81 (K)/2016 with the direction that the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 23,78,174/-by an order dated 30-08-2016. The petitioner’s firm was paid Rs. 9,38,000/-only after making deductions. In so far as the additional three works was concerned, the firm was paid only Rs. 21,59,322/-.The amount so calculated was fixed at the old rate in the original agreement dated 22-08-2005 and not as per the revised price contained in the letter dated 22-09-2011 of the respondent No.2 and the revocation letter dated 07-04-2017 which stipulates that the rates of additional works shall be reviewed, the same has not been done till date. 11. 21,59,322/-.The amount so calculated was fixed at the old rate in the original agreement dated 22-08-2005 and not as per the revised price contained in the letter dated 22-09-2011 of the respondent No.2 and the revocation letter dated 07-04-2017 which stipulates that the rates of additional works shall be reviewed, the same has not been done till date. 11. When the petitioner approached the respondents for payment of the additional works, the respondent No.3 contended that the rate for additional works has to be in accordance with Clause 12.1.2 of Section 2 of the contract agreement. The contract agreement between the petitioner and the respondents was signed on 22-08-2005. The additional works which was offered to the petitioner was in the year 2011 after lapse of six years and at the revised rate which was contained in the letter dated 29-09-2011. The respondents’ stand is that the petitioner has to be paid in the old rate which was in existence six years before which is wholly unconscionable and therefore, it is unreasonable and opposed to public policy. There is clear offer by the respondents that the revised estimate has been approved and the cost of the works is clearly indicated in the letter of offer which is mentioned as Rs. 36 lakhs for play field, Rs. 42.46 lakhs for boundary wall and Rs. 96.22 lakhs for retaining wall respectively. Their letters dated 25-11-2010, 29-09-2011 and their letter for execution of the work vide letter 06-01-2012 indicates that the work was offered in the revised rate. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved has moved this petition for a direction by this Court for payment of the remaining bill which was payable to the petitioner for completion of three above mentioned additional works. 12. The first point of contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondents have objected to the petition at the preliminary stage that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner has argued that agreement between the parties cannot oust the jurisdiction of the High Court. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is a basic structure of the Constitution and can neither ousted by an agreement or by any statutory provisions. The petitioner has argued that agreement between the parties cannot oust the jurisdiction of the High Court. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is a basic structure of the Constitution and can neither ousted by an agreement or by any statutory provisions. Placing reliance on the Apex Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition(C) No. 29040 of 2018 in the State of Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India & Ors, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Apex Court has ruled that the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be ousted by a private agreement between the parties. Relevant para is reproduced: “13 While the powers the High Court may exercise under its writ jurisdiction are not subject to strict legal principles, two clear principles emerge with respect to when a High Court’s writ jurisdiction may be engaged. First, the decision of the High Court to entertain or not entertain a particular action under its writ jurisdiction is fundamentally discretionary. Secondly, limitations placed on the court’s decision to exercise or refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction are self-imposed. It is a well settled principle that the writ jurisdiction of a High Court cannot be completely excluded by statute. If a High Court is tasked with being the final recourse to upholding the rule of law within its territorial jurisdiction, it must necessarily have the power to examine any case before it and make a determination of whether or not its writ jurisdiction is engaged. Judicial review under Article 226 is an intrinsic feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. 13. Therefore, the learned counsel argues that owing to the arbitral agreement the plea that the present contractual agreement can be tried only in the Delhi High Court jurisdiction is misplaced. 14. The learned counsel further argues that the contractual agreement which are unconscionable, unreasonable and against the public policy can be interfered with by the Court when the other party is possessed with greater bargaining power and when there is clear inequality and disparity between the parties, the contractual agreement becomes unreasonable, the power to interfere into the contractual agreement, has been upheld in several judgments. When there is unconscionable contractual agreement, the Court being Court of equity, may interfere into the contractual agreement which results in injustice to either party. When there is unconscionable contractual agreement, the Court being Court of equity, may interfere into the contractual agreement which results in injustice to either party. The learned counsel has placed upon the Supreme Court case of Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited and Others- vs Partha Sarathi Sen Roy and Others, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 345 . He has also placed reliance upon the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another-vs-Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 156 . Para 83 of the judgment is reproduced herein below: 83…… "The time may come when this process of 'construing' the contract can be pursued no further. The words are too clear to permit of it. Are the courts then powerless? Are they to permit the party to enforce his unreasonable clause, even when it is so unreasonable, or applied so unreasonably, as to be unconscionable? When it gets to this point, I would say, as I said many years ago : 'there is the vigilance of the common law which, while allowing freedom of contract, watches to see that it is not abused' : John Lee & Son (Grantham) Ltd. v. Railway Executive [1949] 2 All. E.R. 581, 584. It will not allow a party to exempt himself from his liability at common law when it would be quite unconscionable for him to do so." 15. The Apex Court has ruled that the writ jurisdiction cannot be ousted by any agreement or other statutory provisions, the same being basic structure of the Constitution, the Hon’ble High Court has the jurisdiction despite the existence of arbitration clause between the parties. Furthermore, it has been established that contractual agreement which are unconscionable, unreasonable against the public and either party has advantageous bargaining power, the courts can interfere and adjudicate upon such contractual agreement to put the parties on equal footing. He has prayed for issuance of appropriate direction for payment of the remaining bill due to him for the execution of the additional works. 16. Appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, learned counsel Mr. Pfosekho submits that the respondents has raised preliminary objection as the parties have arbitral agreement which is contained in Clause 13.0 with respect to Court’s jurisdiction. 16. Appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, learned counsel Mr. Pfosekho submits that the respondents has raised preliminary objection as the parties have arbitral agreement which is contained in Clause 13.0 with respect to Court’s jurisdiction. It is provided that any suit or application, arising out of any dispute or difference on account of this tender or any matter in relation to the Award of the contract or for enforcement of arbitration clause under the Contract, shall be filed in a competent Court at New Delhi only and no other court of any other District of the country shall have any jurisdiction in the matter. Therefore, the learned counsel has argued that the writ petition does not lie before this Court and the writ petition may be dismissed in limine. Learned counsel has also submitted that the contractual agreement between the parties were to be executed within a period of ten months from the 10th day from issue of the letter of award. The letter of award was issued on 20-05-2005 by letter NO.RITES/CO/CP/NVS/Tuensang/Phase-A/Pkg-II/2005/2R. After having afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, they were unable to complete the work. There are clauses with specific conditions in the letter of award that time is the essence of the contract and if the party fail to achieve the target within stipulated time period, the party shall be liable to pay compensation for amount calculated at the stipulated rate in Clause 2 of the General conditions of the Contract Agreement. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported his arguments by placing reliance on decided case by the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Company Limited and Others-vs-Jute Corporation of India Limited and Another, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 680 (Civil Appeal No. 4877 of 2007 with NOs. 4878 of 2007 and 4879 of 2007 decided on October 12, 2007). Learned counsel submits that when there is an arbitral agreement, the writ court does not interfere into the arbitral agreements and the parties should be directed to approach the appropriate Court of arbitration. Paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 18 are reproduced herein below: “14. Construction of the contract entered into by and between the parties is in question before us. There exists an arbitration agreement. Paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 18 are reproduced herein below: “14. Construction of the contract entered into by and between the parties is in question before us. There exists an arbitration agreement. The Arbitration Agreement is of wide amplitude; by reason whereof not only the dispute relating to quality of the jute sought to be supplied by the respondent No.1 may be gone into, the construction, meaning and operation and effect of the contract or breach thereof, if any, would have also fallen for determination of an Arbitrator. 15. It is not correct to contend that clause 8.0 provides for procedure for claim settlement. The said provision in regard to the quality of jute supplied has in our opinion nothing to do with clause 9.0. The arbitration agreement entered into by and between the parties is independent of clause 8.0. It is now well settled that when there exists an arbitration agreement, the writ court ordinarily would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to enter into the dispute. 18. The power of judicial review vested in the superior courts undoubtedly has wide amplitude but the same should not be exercised when there exists an arbitration clause. The Division Bench of the High Court took recourse to the arbitration agreement in regard to one part of the dispute but proceeded to determine the other part itself. It could have refused to exercise its jurisdiction leaving the parties to avail their own remedies under the agreement but if it was of the opinion that the dispute between the parties being covered by the arbitration clause should be referred to arbitration, it should not have proceeded to determine a part of the dispute itself.” 18. For the stated position of law, there being arbitration agreement between the parties, the petitioner cannot go out of the boundary of the arbitration agreement and seek for redressal in other forum. Furthermore, when there is a contractual agreement, the contractual agreement should be enforced between the parties. Therefore, having agreed to certain terms and conditions in the general contract agreement, the petitioner cannot take other pleas and avoid the contract. The learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of State of Orissa and Others-vs-Narian Prasad and Others, reported in (1996)5 SCC 740 . 21. The approach adopted in this decision has to be borne in mind in every such case. The learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of State of Orissa and Others-vs-Narian Prasad and Others, reported in (1996)5 SCC 740 . 21. The approach adopted in this decision has to be borne in mind in every such case. It is also to be kept mind that while the decisions referred to hereinbefore are by smaller Benches, this decision is by a Constitution Bench. A person who enters into certain contractual obligations with his eyes open and works the entire contract, cannot be allowed to turn round, according to this decision, and question the validity of those obligations of the Rules which constitute the terms of the contract. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, which is of a discretionary nature and is exercised only to advance the interests of justice, cannot certainly be employed in aid of such persons. Neither justice nor equity is in their favour. 36. Lastly we may also invoke the holding in Har Shankar and Jageram that the writ petitioners, having entered into agreements voluntarily, containing the conditions aforesaid and having done the business under the licences obtained by them, cannot be allowed to either wriggle out of the agreements nor can they be allowed to challenge the validity of the Rules which constitute the terms of the contract. The High Court should not have exercised its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in aid of such licencees.” 19. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner after the contract was terminated requested the respondents to renew the contract in the interest of public in general and also for the students in the district of Tuensang having considered the public interest in general. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner after the contract was terminated requested the respondents to renew the contract in the interest of public in general and also for the students in the district of Tuensang having considered the public interest in general. The respondents after consideration of the matter was pleased to issue the letter of revocation of the contract which terminated the contract dated 22-08-20005 by letter dated 07-04-2017 which is reproduced below:- “No: RITES/GGM(CP)/ROC-II/CP/NVS/2017 Dated:07.04.2017 LETTER OF REVOCATION OF THE CONTRACT WITHOUT PREJUDICE M/s T.L. Construction, C-26/3, Half Nagarjan, Dimapur (Nagaland)-797112 Sub: Construction of Ph-A Buildings (Pakage-II) for JNV at Chare Distt-Tuensang (Nagaland) Ref: (i) LOA issued vide letter No. RITES/CP/TC/NVS/Tuensang/Phase-A Package-II/2005/2R Dated:20.05.2005 issued by RITES (ii) Contract agreement No:RITES/CP/TC/NVS/Tuensang/Ph-A/Pkg-II/2005/2R dated 22.08.2005 between RITES & M/s T.L. Construction (iii) Termination of the contract vide letter No:RITES/CO/CP/NVS-Tuensang (Package-II)/3592-53/Gen/09 dated 12.08.2013 (iv) M/s T.L. Construction’s request dated 26.09.2016 for out of court settlement (v) Approval of C.M.D. for committee of nominated officers (vi) RITES letter dated 22.02.2017 regarding intimation of meeting (vii) Your letter dated 01.03.2017 for withdrawal of all suits against RITES & to complete the remaining work as per terms & condition of original contract agreement dated 22.08.2005. Dear Sir, RITES is pleased to issue the “Letter of Revocation of the contract” on the terms & conditions of the original contract No:RITES/CP/TC/NVS/Tuensang/Ph-A/Pkg- II/2005/2R dated 22.08.2005 signed by you. As per terms of “settlement out of court” the following conditions shall be followed: 1. The remaining works of Package-II shall be executed by you as per terms & conditions of the original contract signed by you with RITES Ltd. 2. The rates for additional work shall be reviewed and will be paid as per original contract 3. The all remaining work shall be completed in all respect as per contract signed on 22.08.2005 to the satisfaction of RITES/NVS 4. Time is the essence of this contract. The remaining work shall be completed and handed over to NVS within (06) six months reckoned from 15th day from the date of issue of this letter 5. You will submit a revised Bar Chart/CPM-PERT Chart for completion of the remaining work, within a week from the date of issue of this letter and same shall be get approved from the competent authority 6. You will adhere the milestones fixed for the balance work. You will submit a revised Bar Chart/CPM-PERT Chart for completion of the remaining work, within a week from the date of issue of this letter and same shall be get approved from the competent authority 6. You will adhere the milestones fixed for the balance work. Failure in achieving the mile stones will attract the penalty as per schedule given in the supplementary agreement 7. The measurement/payment of the additional work shall be reviewed as per terms of the original contract 8. No compensation shall be paid for any reason causing the delay in the project 9. You are instructed to resume the work within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of issue of this letter 10.You have to sign supplementary agreement within a week from the date of issue of this letter 11.Your pending payment of 9th RA bill will be released after fulfillment of contractual obligations and terms at para (5) & (10) above 12. This letter is being issued in duplicates, you are instructed to sign & submit the duplicate copy of this letter to his office as a token of your acceptance within a week from the date of issue of this letter 13. You are instructed to contact Sr. Dy.GM/CP-NVS, ROC-II Gurgaon (Haryana) for carrying out the remaining work 14. This letter and the other letters as referred at Sl. No. (i) to (vii) will form the part of the supplementary agreement alongwith the original agreement signed on 22.08.2005 between RITES & your company i.e. M/s T.L. Constructions, Dimapur, Nagaland Sr.Dy. General Manager/CP-NVS” 20. Although the contract was terminated, the respondents were gracious enough to revoke the cancellation of the contract agreement and on conditions as contained in the letter of revocation reproduced above. The revocation letter clearly indicates that the work will be executed in the old rate as provided at Item No.2. Again the Item No.7 provides that the measurements will be made as per the old contract. The petitioner has willfully and consciously agreed upon the conditions and he cannot bring any other new grounds of demand. The petition must be dismissed. Furthermore, the additional works have not been completed by the petitioner. Therefore, only Rs. 21,59,322/-was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has no case at all. 21. The petitioner has willfully and consciously agreed upon the conditions and he cannot bring any other new grounds of demand. The petition must be dismissed. Furthermore, the additional works have not been completed by the petitioner. Therefore, only Rs. 21,59,322/-was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has no case at all. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that they have already filed an affidavit wherein, they have pleaded that the respondent No. 2, by letter dated 26-09-2011 Annexure-C to the writ petition, sanctioned revised price and rate for additional works and by the said letter, the construction agency was also requested to complete all the works within the stipulated time. However, due to the tussle between the petitioner and the respondent No.3, there has been delay of completing the work in question and some portion is still yet to be completed. The respondent No. 2 is not a necessary party as the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition has questioned the action of the respondent No. 3 and prayer in the instant writ petition is also for a direction upon the respondent No. 3 and its officials for release of payment of the additional works as per the revised rate therefore the name of respondent No.2 is not a necessary party and has prayed that his name may be struck off from the instant writ petition. 22. The submissions made by the petitioner and the respondents are considered. 23. There seems to be only two issues in the present writ petition which are; (i) Whether in the existence of arbitral agreement between the parties that the High Court of Delhi alone will have the jurisdiction to try the dispute arising out of the contract is enforceable in law (ii) Whether unconscionable contractual agreement can be enforced in the eye of law. 24. On the first point for determination which is the matter relating to jurisdiction where the respondents in this writ petition has taken the plea that arbitral agreement stipulates that the jurisdiction of Delhi will be the only Court to have a decision on the matter is examined. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under Section 5 which provides for judicial intervention provides as follows: 5. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under Section 5 which provides for judicial intervention provides as follows: 5. Extent of judicial intervention.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part. 25. This is clear that when arbitral agreement is in existence between the parties, the Court normally do not intervene unless there are exceptional prevailing circumstances. 26. The plea of the petitioner is that an arbitral agreement between the parties cannot oust the jurisdiction of the writ Court. It may be applicable in other cases. In arbitration cases the Courts must always allow the process of arbitration to complete. The above settled law has been reiterated not only in the case of Empire Jute Company Limited and Others relied upon by the respondents but also several other decisions of the Apex Court. Only when arbitration is complete and parties are aggrieved, the jurisdiction of the Court begins. In our case, the arbitration has neither started nor concluded. The only fact that is brought before this Court is that, the first work was left incomplete as admitted by the petitioner in the bar. An inventory was prepared, wherein the respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 23,78,174/-whereupon, the respondents, after deduction had paid a sum of Rs. 9,38,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner issued ‘No Due Certificate’. The contract dated 22.08.2005 was terminated. Again in 07.04.2017 contractual agreement dated 22.08.2005 was revived and three new additional works were granted. The petitioner claims that the works were completed and he was only paid a sum of Rs. 21,59,322/-out of the total contractual amount of Rs. 1.74 lakhs in the old rate. This he claims to be an unconscionable agreement. There is the total denial of the fact by the respondent who has submitted that the additional works were not completed. There is dispute with facts and figures. There is claim and counter claim. This cannot be adjudicated by a writ Court. 27. Even if the two arguments of the petitioner should survive that the matter can be brought before a writ Court, and also, that there is an unconscionable agreement, the nature of the issues involved requires leading of evidence, which explains the hesitancy of this Court’s indulgence in the matter. This cannot be adjudicated by a writ Court. 27. Even if the two arguments of the petitioner should survive that the matter can be brought before a writ Court, and also, that there is an unconscionable agreement, the nature of the issues involved requires leading of evidence, which explains the hesitancy of this Court’s indulgence in the matter. The controversy being of nature which cannot be decided lest by proper leading of evidence, this Court is of the view that the writ Court cannot adjudicate into the matter. In view of the reasons stated, this Court deems it proper that a direction may be given that the matter may be placed before the appropriate forum. The petition stands disposed of as indicated above.