286 t di 1 l 4b WP NOe 1911of2010 etce 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 1 CHANDIGARHe DATE OF DECISION 4040201 1 v IleCWP Noel9ll of2010 Mls Parkash Rice Mill eeaPetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others C Respondents 0 Co 2CWPNo3554 of2010 I Mls Hanuman Rice Mill 8 Another 45 eeePetitioners I Versus Z The Stateof Haryanaand others Respondents Q I WP Noe5281of2010 l Mls Inder SinghAjit Singh Z eePetitioner oo Versus m StateofHaryanaand others Z ll WP Noe5282 of2010 IVIIsGanpatiRice Overseas 4 eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryanaand others eRespondents Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 287 r 1 S 9 2 CWPNo 1911of2010etce 1 Mls AnnapurnaOverseas eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others espondents CWP N05279 of2010 Mls Jhandu Mal Tara Chand eeePetitioner Versus 1 stateofHaryanaand others 0 0 I of2010 0 Mls HaryanaRice Lande I eeePetitioner Z Versus Stateof Haryanaand others 0 I Respondents 10 WP Noe5287of2010 Z Mls Shiva Shiva TradingCompany m eeePetitioner 7 Vrsus Z Stateof Haryanaand others tl Respondents Mls Siri Ganesh Rice and General Mill 4m aeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others eeRespondents of2010 e t Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 288 j1 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 3 4e9 Mls Jai DurgaRice and General Mill 1 eeePetitioner Versus The StateofHaryanaand others Respondents Mls Hindustan Rice Mills 4eePetitioner Versus m C The StateofHaryanaand others 0 0 I CWP NoA9170f2010 C9 Mls Krishna Rice 8i General Mills eaePetitioner Z Versus StateofHaryanaand others r I t Z Mls Raj ShreeRice Mills OO eeePetitioner m7 Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others Qm Noe5286of2010 Mls Mahavir Rice 82 General Mills C eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryanaand others Respondents SeCWP N05285 of2010 Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 289 e 1 14 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 4 1 9 MJsHanuman Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others 2espondents CWP No4937 of2010 Mls A One Rice Unit eeePetitioner Versus n 0 StateofHaryanaand others 0 C43 Respondents 0 CORAM I Z HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 2 PRESENT MrTS Dhindsa Advocate MrOP GoyalSrAdvocate with I Msllimplejeet Kaur Advocate t0 MrR0Sharma DAG Haryana Z MrHari Pal Venna Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocatewith rlO MrArvind Seth Advocate MrKS Dadwal Advocate 7 Z Permod KohliJe CL With similarityof facts and common 1SSues havingbeeninvolved Ill thesewrit petitionsth same are beingdisposedofby this coinmon order The petitioners in all these petitions are Millers engagedlll custom ee millingof the paddypursuantto entered into with the HaryanaState CooperativeSupplyand Marketing17ederationLimited hereinafter referred to as the HAFED1 Even thoughthere are separate impugnednotices ln all these petitions however the contents being Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 290 11 C 5 CWPNo 1911of2010etce 401 factsare beingnoticedfrom CWP No191 1 of2010 StateofHaryanaissued rice levyorder called as Rice Procurement LevylOrder 1985 hereinafterreferredto as 1985 order This order has beenissuedunder Section30f the Essential Act 1955with theobjectiveofmaintaining thesupplyof rice and forsecuringits equitable distribution ld availabilityat fair prices Clause 10 of the aforesaid 1985order empowersthe Governmentor the 1 Director Food andSupplies to directany rice miller to convert any stock or C paddyinto rice held by the govemmentor its agency or the Food 0 0 ofIndia on suchterms andconditionsas may be by I theGovemment or the Director ln terms ofthe aforesaidClauseofthe 1985 C5 I Orderthe StateofHaryanadecidedto engagevarious rice mills in the State Z of Haryanafor Custom Millingof Rice commonlyknown as CMR A detailed were formulatedin this regardon 1992 008 0 issuedby the Director Food and SuppliesHaryanaUnder the 1985Orcler I and the the miller is requiredto deliver the rice after Z custom millingto the FCI Allotment to the millers is to be madebythe rn DistrictLevel Committeeheadedbythe DeputyDirector and of Wm3 Z District Managerof procurementagenciesincludingthe Food Corporation Oa ofIndia It also provides not to make any allotmentto a defaulter rice iniller Clause 5 6o of the oolicy Annexure Pm4lprovidesfor execution of whereas Clause 09deals with the paymentof millingcharges C For the paddyseason 20082009 the petitionernamelyMls Parkash Rice Shivpuri Road Karnal was entrusted with 1439 MT tonns paddyfor milling A formal agreementenvisagedunder Clause 5 Ooofthe policyalso came to be executed on 2682008 Condition 15 i9 of the agrecment Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 291 s l clll V 6 CWPNoe 1911of2010 etc 4 J for deliveryof the rice after millingas per quality laid down bythe HAFED directly to the FCI Condition 17of theagreementdeals with the mode and manner of deliveryThe said conditionis as underl 617The deliveryof rice shall be deemedtO have beell bytheMillerlSecondPartyafterthe stocksare loadedinto wagons or deliveredlnto the godowns as per directions of the official of the C First Partyafler necessary and 0 0 of the quantityin accordance with tlle C5 procedure of the First Partyat the cost ofthe I MillerlSecondParty It will be the responsibility 0f the Z MillerlSecond Partyto supplyA note weightcheck andall otherrelevantdocumentsto the concerned memo C agency immediately afterthe deliveryofrice for claiming I Lo from Food Corporation of India failingwhich Z he shall be liable to pay CCL rate of interestfor tlle Ql delayedperiod All the expenditureincludinglabour n7 Z loading unloading and any other r expenditure etc incurredin connection with the delivery of ice within 8 Kms shall be borne by the MillerlSecond Party In case rice 1S delivered beyond8 Kms the expenditure incurred by the A4illerlSecond 449m Party Orl this account shall be regulatedas per instructions ofGovernment oflndia 59 Even FCI has issued guidelinesdated 17008 regardinginspection Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 292 e W 7 CWP No 1911of2010etc d d sampleanalysisin of the procurementof paddyand ofrice stockduring Seasons200809 Perusalof this documentrevealsthatproper has been for the qualityof the rice its supplyand storageetc The quality hasto be maintainedas per the by the Governinentof Indiaetc It is admittedcase of the parties that thepetitioner deliveredthe milled rice to FCI upto the monthsof 2009 It is alleged 1m thatat the time of deliveryFCI Kamal carriedout detailedanalysis to test the prescribedquality specifications of the nce delivered by the 0 0 The petitionerhas placedon recordvarious I 0 reports111 respectof the suppliesmade by the petitionerThese are I collectively marked as Annexure e7with the Writ petitionThe acceptance Z reportsindicate that the milled rice suppliedconfonns to the prescribed speciflcations as regards the qualityofthe ricesupplied C4 I In the next paddyseason 200920 10 againthepartiesenteredinto C same kind of arrangementas ln the previousSeason 200809 The Z petitioner was entrusted with 4390MT of paddyfor milling for the sason 00 200910 After lnillingthe rice was to be deliveredto FCl not later thatl e2 Z 313010 for which followingscheduleof delivery was prescribed under ll theagreementexecutedbetweenthepartiesfor this season as well October and November 20091 20Ioofthe allotted paddy December 2009 25IdO ea January2010 29Ido February 2010 150Io do March 2010 15Io edo 71 The milled rlce was to be delivered to the FCI directlyin accordance Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 293 1 1 4 CWPNo 1911of2010 etce 8 1 withthe contractual in terms of the agreement dated 1 102009 Thepetitioner claims to have milled 184 MT of paddyfor the monthsof 2009andwhendeliverywas sought to be madeto FCI lt refused to take the deliveryIt is statedthat when the made enquiries regarding the reason for refusal of the FCI to take deliveiylt receivedIetter dated 10 112009 64nnexureP91 issued by the Pawan GuptaDepot Manager FCI Karnal wherebythe petitionerwas m communicated that the rice stockedby it at D3111 Bajidahad been declaredas Below RejectionLimit lereinafterrefened to as BR It 0 0 was furthercommunicatedthatas a pre condition the petitioner is required I C5 to replace the rice at its own costs as per directionsof thehigherauthority I for accepting the paddyfor the year 2009 10 A silnilar Ietter dated Z 271 1 2009 was received from the District ManagerHAFED Karnai 2 6Annexure P109 askingthe petitioner to replacethe BRL stock of nce I within the as per directions of the FCI The petitioner C3 received yet another letter dated 41 22009 from the Assistant Food and Z SuppliesOfflcer Karnal on the same lines advisingthepetitioner to replace Qo the BRL declaredrice for the year 200809 to facilitatethe deliveryof the A7 Z nce pertainingto the paddyseason 2009 10 The petitionernlade a QW dated 2 11 22009 objectingto the demand of the FCI ED and Food and Supplies with the pleathat the delivery of rice for thepreviousyear 20089 was as per the agreementand quality 4ee speciflcations and norms Petitioner insisted for takingdelivelyofthe rice for the season 200910 The petitionerhas been served with the impugned notice dated 812010 64nnexureP1I issuedby the Area Manageraskingit to replacethe substandardstocks with stock of applicable for Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 294 191 be CWP No 1911of2010 etc 9 t season 200809within seven daysfailingwhich the reserves therightto dispose of substandardrice stockdeliveredbythepetitioneI at itsrisk and costs without furthernotice and without prejudice to theIegal banningthe business dealingand to the State Government for blaclolisting This Iener Annexure Pll was followed by another notice dated 15 l 0 10 issued by the HAFED 0Annexure lI advisingthe petitioner to rcplaceBRL rlCC Pe2 Both these Iettersare subjectmatter of r challenge in the presentpetitionThe petitionersubmitteda detailedreply 0 C3 dated2512010 64nnexure Pv131 to the FCl andHAFED I C5 Challenge to theseordersisprimarily on foUowinground I ilThe are not entitled to raise disputel ll respectof the Z agreementfor the season 200809 atle time of deliveryof rice for the 2 9e season 200940 as boththe transactions are distinct andarise out different agreements I 6iiDeliverymade duringthe season 2008 was duly acceptedas Z to the prescribedspecifications and standardswithout any oo objection and thus no dispute its qualityand specicationscould 17 Z be raised in the next seasol Om iiiITestsconductedallegedlylll respectof deliveryfor the year2008e09 were at the back ofthepetitioner and wthout even infonningtlle petitioner v 1Freshinspectionhas been carriedout aller a periodof noore than six 4P months of the deliveiywhen the rice suppliedto the FC1 was stacked and leii out to the vagariesof weather 6v 9 There has been violation of principlesofnaturaljustice There are three sets of repliesfiled by the respondentsThe replics Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 295 4 10 6Me P NOe 1911of2010 etc filedby the FCI and the HAFED do not disputethe facts statedby 1he RavinderMalik District Food and SuppliesController Karnal has that the miller was to deliver 67Io rice of the paddyduringthe year 200809 aftermillingto the FCI withinthe period e crop upto3132009 This deliverywas madeas per the tennsaondconditionsof theagreementand milling of the had been by District ManagerHAFED However no has 1 the rice deliveredby the petitioner aftereightmonthsand refusedto r the furtherrice ofcropyear 200C1 0 vide Ietterdated 10 112009 0 0 In thereplyfiled by noA and 5 7CII their action is I C5 soughtto be justied on the groundthat nce suppliedby the petitioner I duringthe season 200809 was found to be substandard i c Below Z Limit againstthe laid down for the relevantyear lt 1S furthermentioned that a super inspection was carriedout by Shri Janak r Raj AGM QCOFCI Zonal Office North Noida and the analysisrepotts I dated 230009 to 2810 2 009 0Annexures Re511A RwSllB RW511Cl Z showsthat the stocks deliveredbythepetitioner were below the laid down 00 norms BRL and the petitionerwas required to replacethe same for w Z which sufftcient opportunitywas grantedto the petitionerIt is further Q allegedthat merelybecause stocks were acceptedby the FCI petitioiler cannot be absolved of its liability lt lS stated that i n fact petitioner succeeded in deliveringthe Below RejectionLimit stocks in connlvance C with the officials ofthe CorporationIt is furthermentionedthal omcials of CorporationnamelyShri KCGarg Area AllanagerS Dubey AGM QC9 SllTGaba Managerand RajeshChaudharyTechnical Assistant were placedunder suspension and chargeleeted Someofthenl have even been Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 296 e d lt etV P Noe 1911of2010 etc 11 relievedfrom service ofthe FCI According to noA and5 216 MT rice deliveredbythe during theperiodfrom 122009 to 52009 was found to be Below Rejection Limit causingIoss to the to the tune of RsA6A8 lacs It is mentionedthat the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to replacethe substandardrice The were not onlyagainstthe but alsoagainstnumberof othermillers It is furtherinentionedthat the offer of the Corporation was m by about 31 millers who replacedthe substandardrice supplied r duringthe season 2008e09but thepetitionerfailed to do so 0 0 havealso pleadedthat thereis an arbitrationclausebeingClauseNo23 lll I C5 the agreemententeredbetween the petitioner and no6 which I inter alia providesfor settlementof all disputesby referring to the sole Z arbitration of the Director Food and Supplies Director 2 CC of the Agencyor any person appointcdby thetn 111 this behalf The I have thuschallenged the ofthe writ petition The petitionerhas fiied replicationreiterating its stand in the writ Z petitionThe additional fact statedin the replicationis that even as per m inspectionreportthe infraction in the specification is inequitable It 1S vm Z furtherpleadedthat the allegedsuper inspectionwas carried out after a tl periodof more than six months and without any notlce to the petitioner Or associating it with such inspection I have heard learned counsel for the partiesat lengthand carefully 4 gonethrough the record During the pendencyof this petition some interim orders were passedaskingthe FCI to acceptthe stocks ofrice for the season 20010 and pay 50Io ofthe billingchargesDetailed lnterimorder in this regard was Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 297 1 17 12 e CWPNo 1911of2010 etc V passed on April 9 2010 This order in CWP Nol91 1 of 2010 was extendedto all thewrit petltiOnSe Issuesinvolved 111 this petitionare two foldsa I supplyof substandard rice forthe season 200809 6iilSupply of custom Of ricefor theseason 2009e2010 both the transactionswere underdistinct and separate executedbetween the parties the custom millingof 1 for conversionto rice in accordancewith the cOntraCtUalStiPUltiOnS andthe Schemefonnulatedunderthe 1985Order It is common case ofthe 0 0 that all supplies were acceptedbythe FCI from the petitionerfor the C season200809 withoutany objectionin respectof quality I mode and manner of deliveryetc as under the Z Not onlythatthe rice was even payments were made to the petitionerand their securitydepositreleased by the HAFED r with the concurrence ofFCI Even FCI in its detailedcounter did I t not disputethe deliveryof nce and the releaseof paymentsand security Z without any objectionThe case projectedby the FCl IS that super r10 inspectlonwas carriedout by the officials of the FCI wherein the rice aWm Z suppliedby the petitioner was found substandardie Below Rejection Limit BRL9 This inspection was carriedout by the ofilcials of the FCI after six months of the flnal supplybythe petitionerlt is pertinent to note thatthe supplyofthe rice was to be madein five phasesbetweenOctobcr to We March At no stageduringthe periodof supplyspreading over six months any objectionwas raised regardingthe qualityspecillcationsof the nce suppliedIt was only when the entire supplywas made and aRer release of payments andsecurityand after six months the super inspection was said to Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 298 r4 T3 Iv 1911of2010etc 13 be carried out No has been renderedby the FCI for not out any or analysisduringthe six monthsof supjoly periodor on of supply To the contrarythe haveplaced on recordtheanalysisreportin respectofthe quality ofthe deliveryofrice madebythem Theseanalysis were also carriedout bythe FCI Apartfrom above the test said to be conductedby the FCI duringsuper inspectionwas carriedout at the back of the 1 It would have been more prudentto assoclate the petitioner C when duringsuper inspectionany deflciencywas noticed in the rice 0 0 bythepetitionerbut theFCI chosenot to associatethepetitioner I C the suppliers or even informthem lt has also come on record that the I custommilled rice was lyingin thedepotof the FClFhe conditionunder Z whichstoragewas made has not beenbrought on record Admiuedlyrice lS a perishable item It needs 10 be keptundcrprescribed conditionfor Ionger r storage life If it is left to vagaries of weather it is open to perishNo such I C3 materialhasbeenbrought on recordor even pleaded in thereplyregarding Z the storageconditions of the rice suppliedby the petitioner duringthe ClO season200809In any case thepetitioners were not put to any nottce or m Z provided an opportunity of beingheard regarding the quality Om beforecarryingout the test or even at the time thetest was conducted This has resulted into serious violation ofthe principles ofnatural justice Notice to the petitioner was givenonlywith regardto replacement of the alleged 4eP substandardrice However at the time of determination whether the rlCe lS substandard or not no notice was ever issuedto the petitionerllhus action ofthe in refusingdeliveryofrice for the season 20092010 lS not justifiableunder any Clrcumstances have referred to Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 299 e 14 4 4e9 CWPNo 1911of2010etc J of the Honble SupremeCoun passedin the case of Tapan KumarSadhukhanVSe Food Corporation ofIndia and others 99616 Court Cases 1010In this Honble Supreme Court has the need for improving publichealth While dealingwith thc ofFood of India Act 1964 it has been observed provisions that it is the obligation of the Stateor its agencyto ralse nutritionalIevel and improve health It has also beenheld that the Stateshouldnot e allowsubstandardfood grainsto reach market for human consumptlon C without the same so as to makeit Ot for human consumptlon 0 0 While referringto this judgmen it has been pleadedon behalf of I that substandardrice cannot be utilizedbythe Statefor supply C5 I underthe distributionsystemas it is injurious to publichealth l fail Z tounderstandhow this is relevantin so far as the interasedispute betweenthepetitioner and is concerned State and its agenCYS Q to providefood grainsflt for hulnan consulnption to theneedy I who are upon the State publicdistribution Z cannot be disputed However thequestion in the presentpetition1S Q0 breach of mutual contractual obligationsbetween the partiesand Iawo Z thereofThis judgmentdoes not helpthe in any consequences Qm except to obligatethem to supplyonlysuch food grainsas are 0t manner for human consumptionbyupgradingthe substandardfood grains have also pleadedagainstthc of the wnt 1 petitionon two counts flrstly that the writ petitioninvolves disputcd of fact and thus remedyunder Anicle 226 of the Constitutionof India is not available to the petitionersSecondly there IS an arbitrationClause No3 in thecontract agreement between the patties Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 300 7 1 1m P Noe 1911of2010 etce 15 andtheonlyremedy availableto the lS to invoketheremedyby wayofarbitration 1 It is true thattheHighCourtwhileexercising under Article226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to entettaina wril petitioninvolvingsenous of fact However this is not a ruleof law but a rule of discretionwhere the HighCourt exercisesa self imposedrestrictionto avo id to upon disputedquestions of fact 1m in exerciseofwrit jurisdictionIn thepresentcase there doesnot seem to be Q any senous of fact so as to decline the pleaof the 0 C3 in the writ petitionWhat is soughtto be projectedas disputed I C5 of fact is the supplymadeby the petitionerduringthe season I 2008e2009 have pleadedthat the nce suppliedwas Z substandardwhereas the petitionershave pleadedthe same to be 2 to the prescribed quality The supplyof rice its I quantltyetc 1S an admittedpositionamongstthe partiesThe petitioners t0 haveplacedon recordanalysisconductedbythe Food Corporation of lndia Z certi6ring thequality prescribed underthe agreement and the m norms laid down by the Govemmentof India This fact is not disputedIt m7 Z has however beenpleadedbythe thatwhen a superinspection Ll was conducted after six inonthsof the supplynce supplywas found to be substandardSuch tests were not conductedin the presence of the petitioner or with their association Under these circumstancesit cannot be said that ew there are serious disputedquestionsof fact The petitionersare disputing the analysisthe test conducted bythe respondenfs at their back whereasthe respondents are disputingearlier analysisconducted by their own officials certifying the qualityspeciflcations So what is beingdisputedis the action Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 301 W 16 OWPNoe 1911of2010 etc 1 4 oftheir own bythe This Court is not calledupon10 decide about thequestion whethertherice supplied bythe during theseason 200809 is substandardor no Coun is onlyconcemedwith the breachof contractual and the violation of the conditionslaid down in theyear 1985order which is statutoryin nature Thus the pleaof the not to interferein exercise of writ jurisdiction deserves 1 reJectionThe have relied upon a judgmentof the Honble r Court passed in ABL Internation Ltde And another vse Export 0 C0 Credit Guarantee of India Ltd And others 10413 SCC I 45 553 wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that even wherethere are I questions of fact and thereis no absolute bar for entertaining the Z writ petitionjurisdictionunderArticle 226 of the Constitutionof India can be exercised Honble Supreme Court haseven gone to the extent of saying I that if facts requireoral evidence can also be taken in exerciseof writ jurisdiction Where any break of contractualobligationsarises out of Z violation of principlesof naturaljusticeor arbitrary actlon of Staterequires 00 judicialscrutiny writ jurisdiction can be exercised Relevant observations Z are contained in paragraph8 of the aforesaid judgmentwhich are reproduced here under As could beseen fromthe arguments addressedin this appealand as also from thedivergent viewsofthe two couns below one ofthe questions that fallsfor our considerationis whethera writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India is maintainableto eVe enforcea contractualobligation of the Stateor its byan aggrieved party In our opinionthisquestion is no more res integra and is settledbv a largenumberofjudicialpronouncementsofthis Court ln KN GuruswamyVs The StateofMysoreand others l 1955 9SCR 3051this Court held The next questionis whetherthe appellant can coInplainof this by way ofa wr ln our opinionhe could have done so in an ordinary case The appellantis interestedin these contracts and has a right under the Iaws of the State to receive the salne Radhika 2014.05.01 11: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 302 P 17 Iw CWPNoe 1911of2010etce J treatment and begiventhesame chanceas anybody else Wewould thereforein the ordinarycourse havegiventhe the writ he seeks But owingto thetirne which this matter hastaken to reach us 6aconsequencefor which lhe appellant is tn no way to blame for he hasdone all he couldto have an earlyhearinglthereis barelya fonnightof tlle contract leflto go A writ wouldthereforebeineffectiveandas it is not our practiceto issue writs we must dismissthisappeal andleave theappellant contentwith an enunciationofthe lal It is clear from the above observationsof this Court in the said case thougha writ was not issucd on thefactsof that case this Court has held that on a given 1 setof factsif a Stateacts ln an arbitrary nlanner even lll amatter of contract an partycan the by way of writ under Article 226 of the 0 court andthe court on factsofthe said 0 caseis to granttherelief 99 I C5 rhe next questionwhich has been vehementlyStreSSedbY th I 1S existenceof arbitrationclause in the contract agreement Z betweenthepartiesRelevant extract of Clause 23 of the Arbitration between the partiesreadsas under Z 23411 the and difference arisingout of or in r Z anymanner touchingor this agreement m whatsoever except as to any matter the decision of a7 which is providedfor in the contractlshall be Z referredto the sole arbitrationof the Director Food and Director of the AgencyOr any person bythein in this behalf There will be no objection to any such that the person e appointedis or was an employee of Food and Supplies HaryanalAgencyand he had expressed views on