As per case facts, the petitioner, a partnership firm, was awarded a contract by the Central Railway for bridge construction. The work scope and completion period were extended due to ... site conditions and additional requirements, with no penalties, suggesting delays were beyond the petitioner's control. However, the respondents alleged slow progress and non-deployment of resources, leading to the part termination and eventual full termination of the contract. The petitioner claimed that crucial parts of the work were offloaded to other agencies without consent, hindering their progress, and that a substantial amount of work completed remains unpaid. The petitioner appealed, asserting a violation of natural justice as they were not given adequate opportunity to be heard before termination and had sufficient time left to complete the work. The question arose whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with a contractual dispute involving an arbitration clause, especially when allegations of arbitrary action and natural justice violation are made. Finally, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It ruled that the disputes were predominantly factual and contractual, requiring resolution through arbitration as agreed by the parties, rather than through writ proceedings. The court found no violation of natural justice, citing multiple notices and opportunities given to the petitioner. It distinguished the present case from precedents where writ jurisdiction was invoked for public law issues like substantial alterations to the contract scope, confirming that issues of slow progress and non-completion fall within contract law and arbitration. The court directed parties to arbitration while providing interim protection for the security deposit and bank guarantee.