WPMS 1798/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Gajendra Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for respondent no. 1 and Sri B.D. Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 6. The petitioner has prayed for a variety of reliefs. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that they entered into a contract with the Electricity Department for repairs of transformers. Under the contract there is a guarantee clause, by which the Electricity Department can force the petitioner to again repair the transformers, which they have repaired, if it gets broken down during the guarantee period. The petitioner is aggrieved by this guarantee clause contending that though they have repaired the product according to the satisfaction of the Department, nonetheless, the petitioner is being forced to repair the transformers again under the guarantee clause, whereas, in fact, the respondents i.e. the Electricity Department are mishandling the transformers and are not complying with the provisions of the Electricity rules. In this regard, the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause under the agreement and has requested the Department to appoint an arbitrator. The Court finds from a perusal of the application for appointment of the arbitrator that the grievance raised therein is the same, which has been raised in the present writ petition, namely, that the Electricity Rules are not being followed by the Electricity Department. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that when the arbitration clause has been invoked, it is not appropriate for the Court to dwell into the same subject. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed and it would be open to the petitioner to raise the grievance before the arbitrator by invoking the arbitration clause. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 26-08-2011 SP