265 4 P r CWP Noe 1911of2010 etca 1 1 4 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION 44201 1 1eCWP No19110f2010 Mls Parkash Rice Mill eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others 0 0 CWP Noe3554of2010 I Mls Hanuman Rice Mill Another C5 I aeePetitioners Versus Z The Stateof Haryanaand others r C I 3WP Noe5281of2010 Z Mls Inder SinghAjit Singh eePetitioner ClO Versus mw StateofHaryanaand others Z Qm WP N0e5282 of2010 Mls GanpatiRice Overseas e eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others 1 Respondents Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 266 11 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 2 1P Mls Annapurna Overseas eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others CWP Noe5279of2010 Mls Jhandu Mal Tara Chand ePetitioner Versus 1 r StateofHaryanaand others 0 0 Respondents of2010 0 Mls HaryanaRice Lande I eeePetitioner Z Versus Stateof Haryana ld others r I Respondents t0 Z WP Noe5287of2010 Mls Shiva Shiva TradingCompany rlo eePetitioner SV2 Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others Oa Mls Siri Ganesh Rice and General Mill 6eaV ePetitioner Versus State of Haryanaand others Respondents of2010 11 Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 267 C1 CWP No 1911of2010etc 3 Mls Jai DurgaRice and General MiIl eeePetitioner Versus The StateofHaryanaand others Mls Hindustan Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus m r The StateofHaryanaand others 0 C0 I JCWP NoA917 of2010 0 Mls Krishna Rice 8i General Mills I eeePetitioner Z Versus StatefHaryanaand others r I espondents t3 Z Mls Raj Shree Rice MiIls rlO eeePetitioner va Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others 40CWP N005286 of2010 Mls Mahavir Rice Sr General Mills C eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others eeRespondents Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 268 4 1J L CWP No 1911of2010 etce 4 Mls Hanuman Rice Mills OeePetitioner Versus Stateof Haryanaand others CWP N004937of2010 Mls A One Rice Unit eeePetitioner Versus 1 r Stateof Haryanaand others 0 0 I C5 CORAM I Z HONBLE MReJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 2 0 PRESENT2 MrTS Dhindsa Advocate NlOP GoyalSrAdvocatewith I Kaur Advocate C MROSharma DAG Haryana Z MrHari Pal Verma Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocatewith 01 MrArvind Seth Advocate MrKS Dadwal Advocate V7 Z Permod Kohli J With similarityof factsand common issues havingbeeninvolved in thesewrit petitionsthe same are beingdisposedofby this coinmon order The petitioners in all thesepetitions are Millers engaged In custom 4 millingof the paddypursuantto entered into with the HaryanaState Cooperative Supplyand MarketingFederationLimited hereinafter referred to as the HAFED9 Even thoughthere are separate impugnednotices ln all these petitions however the contents being Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 269 l CWP Noe 1911of2010etce 5 commonfactsare beingnoticedfrom CWP Nol91 l of2010 Stateof Haryanaissued rice levyorder called as Rice Procurement yl Order 1985 refened to as 1985 orderlThis order has beenissuedunder Section30f the Essential Commodities Act 1955with theobjective of maintaining the supplyof rice and for securingits distributionand availabilityat fair prices Clause10 of the aforesaid 1985order empowersthe Govemmentor the DirectorFood andSupplies to directany rice miller to convert any stock or 1 paddyinto nce held by the govemmentor lts agency or the Food 0 0 oflndia on suchterms andconditionsas may be by I C theGovemmentor theDirector In terms ofthe aforesaidClauseofthe 1985 I Order the StateofHaryanadecidedto engagevariousrice mills in theState Z ofHaryana for Custom Millingof Rice known as CMR A detailed were formulatedin this regardon 192008 CL issuedbythe Director Food and SuppliesHaryanaUnder the 1985Order I and the the miller is required to deliver the rice after Z custommillingto the FCI Allotment to the millers is to be madeby the Cll 1 District Level CommitteeheadedbytheDeputyDirector and of m Z District Managerof procurementagenciesincludingthe Food Corporation 0 ofIndia It alsoprovides not to makeany allotmento a defaulterricemiller Clause 5 o of the oolicy Annexure P49 providesfor execution of whereas Clause C deals with the paymentof millingcharges For the paddyseason 20082009 the petitionernamelyMls Parkash Rice Shivpuri Road Karnal was entrusted with 1439 MT tonns paddyfor millingA formal agreementenvisaged under Clause S 6Oofthe policyalso came to be executed on 2682008 Condition 15 il of the agreement Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 270 1J 41VP CWP Noe1911of2010etCe 6 1 for of the rice after millingas per quality laid down bythe HAFED directlyto the FCI Condition17of theagreementdeals with the mode and manner of deliveryThe said conditionis as under 17The delivery of rice shall be deemedto have been bytheMillerlSecond Partyafterthestocksare loadedinto wagonsor deliveredinto thegodowns as per 1 directionsof the offlcial of the 0 First Partyafter necessary and 0 0 approvalof the quantityin accordance with the I C5 procedure of the First Partyat the cost of the I MillerlSecondParty It will be the responsibility of the Z MillerlSecondPartyto supplyA note weightcheck 2 rnemoandall otherrelevantdocumentsto the concerned C agency afterthedeliveryofrice for claiming t from Food of India failingwhich Z he shall be liable to pay CCL rate of interestfor the CO delayedperiod All the expenditureincludingIabour m3 Z loading unloading and any other ll etc incurredin connectloil with thedelivery of rice within 8 Kms shall be bome by the MillerlSecond Party In case rice is delivered bevond 8 Kms the expenditure incurred by the MillerlSecond 4 Pany on this account shall be regulatedas per instructions of Government of India Il Even FCI hasissuedguidelines dated1792008 regardinginspection Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 271 44 V 7 CWP No 1911of2010etce sampleanalysisln of the procurementof paddyand ofrice stockduring Seasons200809 Perusalofthis documentrevealsthatproper has been for ensuring thequalityof th rice its supplyand storageetc The quality hasto be maintainedas perlheguidelines prescribed bythe Government of Indiaetc It is admittedcase of the partiesthat the petitioner deliveredthe milledrice to FCI upto the monthsof 2009 It is alleged m thatat the time of deliveryFCI Kamal carriedout detailedanalysis to r test the quality of the nce delivered by the 0 Ca The petitioner hasplaced on record vanous 0 reports lll respectof the suppliesmade by the petitionerThese are I collectivelymarkedas AnnexureI7 with thewrit petitionThe Z reportsindicatethat the milled rice suppliedconforms to the prescribed specifications as regards the qualityofthe rice supplied r I In the next paddyseason 20092010 againthe partiesenteredinto same kind of arrangement as in the previousSeason 200809 The Z petitioner was entrustedwith 4390MT of paddyfor milling for the season m 200910 After millingthe rice was to be deliveredto FCI not laterthan S7 Z 3132010 for which followingscheduleof deliverywas prescribed under Q theagreementexecutedbetweenthepartiesfor this season as well October and November 20091 20Ioofthe allotted paddy December 2009 25Io edO eeeW January2010 25Io do February 2010 15Io doe March 2010 15Io io 55 The milled rice was to be deliveredto the FCl directlyin accordance Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 272 41 CWPNo 1911of2010etc 8 with thecontractual in terms of the agreementdated 1 102009 The claims to havemilled 184 MT of paddyfor the monthsof 2009andwhen delivery was sought to be madeto FCI it refusedto take the deliveryIt is statedthat when the petitionermade the reason for refusal of the FCI to take deliverylt receivedletter dated 10 12009 mexure 191 issued by the Pawan GuptaDepotManager FCI Karnal wherebythe was m communicatedthat the ric stockedby lt at Dl3lll Bajidahad been declaredas Below RejectionLimit hereinaRerreferredto as BRLJ It 0 0 was81rthercommunicatedthat as a pre condition thepetitioner is required I C5 toreplacethe rice at its own costs as per directionsof thehigherauthority I for accepting the paddyfor the year 200 10 A similar Ietter dated Z 27112009 was received from the District ManagerHAFED Kamal Pe101askingthe to replacethe BRL stock of rice r within the as per directions of the FCI The petitioner I C receivedyet anotherletter dated 4 122009 from the Assistant Food and Z Supplies Officer Kamal on thesame lines advisingthepetitioner to replace m the BRL declaredrice for the year 200809 to facilitatethe delivetyof the 7 Z rice pertainingto the paddyseason 2009 10 The petitionermade a dated 21 122009 objectingto the demand of the FCI HAFED and Food and Supplies with the pleathat the delivery of rice for the previousyear 200849 was as perthe agreementantlquality 4aeea speciflcations and norms Petitioner insisted for takingdeliveryofthe rice for the season 200910 The petitioner has been served with the impugned notice dated 812010 lnnexure I11 issued by the Area Manageraskingit to replacethe substandardstocks with stock of applicable for Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 273 6 4 6VV CWP No 1911of2010 etc 9 season 200809within seven daysfailingwhich the reserves therightto disposeof substandardrice stockdeliveredbythepetitioner at lts risk and costs without lrther noticeand without prejudice to thelegal includingbdnningthe business dealingand to the State Govemment for This letter 64nnexure P11 was followed by another notice dated 152010 issuedby the HAFED 64nnexure P advisingthe petitioner to replaceBRL nce a Annexure P21 Both these letters are subjectmatter of in the presentpetitionThe submitteda detailedreply 0 Co dated2512010 Annexure P139to theFCI andHAFED I C9 Challenge to theseordersis primarily on followinggrounds I iThe are not entitled to raise dispute 111 respectof the Z for the season 20009 at the time of deliveryof rice for the 2 4e season20090 as both the transactionsare distinct and arise out different r agreements I 0 made duringthe season 200809 was duly acceptedas Z conforming to the prescribedspecifications and standardswithout any m objection and thusno dispute regarding its qualityand 2ould A Z be raisedin thenext seasone 6iiiTestsconductedallegedlyin respectof deliveryfor the year 200809 were at theback oftheetitioner andwithout even informing the petitioner 0vJFreshinspectionhas been carried out after a periodof rnore than six months of the deliverywhen the nce supplied to the FCI was stacked and eeeeev left out to the vagariesof weather 1 9 There has been violation of principles ofnatural justice There are three sets of repliesflled by the The replies Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 274 f e 1 4 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 10 filed bythe FCI and the HAFED do not dispute the facts stated by the Ravinder Malik District Food and SuppliesController Kamal has statedthat the miller was to deliver 67Io rice of the paddyduringthe e crop year 200809 after millingto the FCI within the period upto3132009 This delivery was madeas per the termsand conditions of theagreementand milling of the petitionerhad been relnded by District ManagerHAFED However no has the rice deliveredbythe after eightmonthsandrefusedto C accept the 61rther ice of crop year 2009 10vide letter dated10 112009 0 0 In the replyfiled by noA and 5 FCII their action 1S I C5 sought to be justifiedon the groundthat rice suppliedby the petitioner I duringthe season 200809 was found to be substandardie Below Z Limit against the laid down for the relevantyear It 02 lS furthermentioned that a super inspection was carried out by Shri Janak Raj AGM QC9 FCI Zonal Office North Noida and the analysisrepons C dated 23102009 to 28102009 Annexures R511A R511B Z showsthat the stocks deliveredbythepetitioner were below the laid down CQ norms BRL andthe was to replace the same for 7 Z which suftlcient was grantedto the petitionerIt is further 0m allegedthat merelybecausestocks were acceptedby the FCI petitioner cannot be absolved of its liability lt lS stated that in fact petitioner succeeded in delivering the Below RejectionLimit stocks In connlvance C with the officials ofthe CorporationIt is 81rthermentionedthat ofScials of CorporationnamelyShri KCGarg Area ManagerSP Dubey AGM QC9 SllIGaba Managerand RajeshChaudharyTechnical Assistant were placedunder and chargeleetedSomeofthem have even been Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 275 r 1 IV e CWP No 1911of2010 etc 11 relievedfrom serviceofthe FCI Accordingto noA and5 216 MT rice deliveredby the duringtheperiodfrom 1222009 to 52009 was found to be Below Rejection Limit causingloss to the to thetune of RsA6A8 lacs It is mentionedthatthepetitioner was afforded an to replacethe substandardrice The allegations were not onlyagainstthepetitionerbut also against numberof othermillers It is furthermentionedthat the offer of the was m by about 31 millers who replacedthe substandardrice supplied 0 duringthe season 200809 but the failed to do so 0 0 havealso pleaded that thereis an arbitrationclausebeingClauseNol3 lIl I C5 the agreemententeredbetweenthe and respondent no which lnter alia providesfor settlementof all disputesbyrefemngto the sole Z arbitrationof the Director Food and Supplies Director of the Agencyor any person appointedby them in this behalf The I havethuschallenged the ofthe writ petition C0 The petitionerhas filed replicationreiterating its stand in the writ Z petitionThe additional fact statedin the replicationis that even as per 00 inspectionreportthe infraction in the specicationis It is w Z furtherpleaded that the allegedsuper inspectionwas carried out aRer a periodof more than SlX monthsand withoutany not ice to thepetitioner or associating it with such inspection I have heard learnedcounselfor the partiesat lengthand carefully Ca gonethrough the record Duringthe pendencyof this petitionsome interim orders were passedaskingthe FCI to acceptthe stocks ofrice for the season 20092010 andpay 500Ioofthe billingchargesDetailedinterimorderin this regard was Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 276 1 5 4 CWP No 1911of2010etce 12 on April9 2010 This orderpassed in CWP No91 1 of 2010 was extendedto all thewrit petitions Issues involved in this petitionare two foldsl il supplyof rice for the season 200809 iISupplyof custom millingof rice forthe season 20092010 both the transactionswere under distinct and separate executedbetweenthepartiesgoverning the custom millingof 1 paddy for conversionto rice in accordancewith the contractual 0 andthe Schemeformulatedunderthe 1985Order It is common case ofthe 0 C0 parties thatall supplies were bytheFCI from the for the I C5 season 200809 without any objection in respectof quality I quantitymode and manner of deliveryetc as prescribedunder the Z Not onlythatthe rice was acceptedeven payments were made 41 to the petitionerand their securitydepositreleased by the HAFED C obviously with the concurrence ofFCI Even FCI in its detailedcounter dld I t not dispute the deliveryof rice and the releaseof paymentsand security Z without any objectionThe case projectedby the FCI lS that super rlo inspectlonwas carried out by the officials of the FCI wherein the rice I7 Z suppliedby the petitioner was found substandardie Below Rejection tl Limit O3RL9This was carried out bythe officials of the FCI after six months of the flnal supplybythe petitionerlt is pertinent to note 6 that the supplyofthe rice was to be made in five phasesbetweenOctoberto 4e March At no stageduringthe periodof supplyspreading Over six months anyobjection was raised regardingthe qualityspecicationsof the rice suppliedIt was onlywhen the entire supplywas made and aAer release of payments andsecurityandaftersix months the super inspection was said to Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 277 1 CWP No 1911of2010etce 13 be carried out No explanationhas been renderedby the FCI for not carrylngout any inspectionor analysisduringthe SlX monthsof supply periodor on of supply To the contrarythe haveplacedon recordtheanalysisreportin respectofthe quality specification ofthe deliveryofrice madebythem Theseanalysis were also carriedout bythe FCI Apartfrom above the test said to be conductedby the FCI duringsuper inspectionwas carried out at the back of the m petitionerIt would have been more prudentto assoclate the petitioner r when duringsuper any deflciencywas noticed in the rice 0 t40 suppliedbythepetitionerbut theFCI chosenot to associate the petitioner I t the suppliers or even inform them It has also come on record that the custom milled rice was Iyingin thedepotof the FCI The condition under Z which storagewas madehasnot beenbrought on record riceis r a perishable itern It needs to be keptunderprescribed condition for Ionger I storagelife If it is left to vagaries of weather it is open to perishNo such C3 materialhasbeen brought on recordor even pleadedin thereplyregarding Z the storageconditions of the nce suppliedby the petitionerduringthe oo season 200809 In any case thepetitioners were not put to any notice Or 7Z provided an opportunity of beingheard thequalityspeciOcation w beforecanying out the test or even at thetimethetest was conducted This hasresultedinto serious violation ofthe prtnciples ofnatural JUsticeNotice to the petitioner was given onlywith regardto of the alleged aWe substandardrice However at the time of determinationwhether the rlCe IS substandardor not no notice was ever issuedto the petitionerThus action of the in refusingdeliveryofrice forthe season 20092010 1S not justifiableunder any Clrcumstances have referred to Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 278 1 1 v P4 CWP No 1911of2010etce 14 of the Honble SupremeCoun passedin the case of Tapan Kumar Sadhukhan vs Food Corporationof lndia and others199616 Court Cases 101 ln this Honble Supreme Court has the need for improving publichealth While dealingwith the provisions of Food Corporation of India Act 1964 it has beenobserved that it is the obligationof the Stateor its agency to raise nutritionalIevel andimprovepublichealth It hasalso beenheld that the Stateshouldnot allow substandard food grainsto reach marketfor human Q without upgrading the same so as to make it fit for human consumption 0 0 While referringto this judgmentit has been pleadedon behalf of I C5 that substandardrice cannot be utilized bythe Statefor supply I underthe publicdistributionsystemas it is injurious to publichealth I fail Z to understandhow thisjudgment is relevantin so far as the interse dispute betweenthepetitioner and is concerned Stateand its agencys I obligation to providefood grainsflt for huinan consumption to the needy t3 personswho are dependent upon the Statesponsoredpublicdistribution Z system cannot be disputed However thequestion in the presentpetition 1S CO breach of mutual contractual between the partiesand 3 Z consequencesthereof This judgmentdoesnot helpthe in any Qw manner exceptto obligatethem to supplyonlysuch food grainsas are Ot for human consumptionby upgrading thesubstandardfood grains havealso pleadedagainstthe ofthe writ 1 petltion on two counts firstly that the writ petitioninvolves disputed questionsof fact and thus remedyunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitionersSecondlythere is an arbitrationClauseNo3 in the contract agreement betweenthe parties Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 279 11 1 4 CWP No911 of2010 etc 15 andtheonlyremedy availableto the IS to invoketheremedyby wayof arbitration Itis true thattheHighCourt while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitutionshould be reluctant to entenain a writ involving seriousdisuted of fact However this is not a ruleof law but a rule of discretionwhere the HighCourt exercisesa self imposed restrictionto avoid to upon disputed questions of fact m inexerciseof wrlt jurisdictior1thepresentcase there doesnot seem to be 0 anyserious disputed of fact so as to declinethe pleaof the 0 0 in the writ petitionWhat is soughtto beprojected as disputed I 0 of fact is the supplymadeby the petitionerduringthe season I 20082009 have that the rice was Z substandardwhereas the have pleadedthe same to be 2 to the qualityspecicationsThe supplyof rice its C I quantityetc is an admittedpositionamongstthe partiesThe petitioners C0 haveplacedon recordanalysisconductedbythe Food of lndia Z certlfying thequality under theagreementandthe OO norms laid down by the Govemmentof India This fact is not disputedIt W Z has however beenpleadedbythe that whena super inspection tl wasconducted after six tnonthsofthe supplynce Sllpplywas found to be substandardSuchtests were not condUctedin the presence of the peutioner or with their association Under these circumstances it cannot be said that a there are serious disputedquestions of fact The petitionersare disputing the analysisthe test conducted by the respondents at their back whereasthe are disputingearlier analysisconducted by their own officials certi6ring thequality So what is beingdisputedis the action Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 280 4 1 1 16 CWP No 1911of2010 etce oftheirown bythe This Court is not calleduponto decide aboutthequestion whethertherice supplied bythepetitioner during theseason 200809 is substandardor not Coun is onlyconcemedwith the breachof contractual obligation and the violation of the conditionslaid down in theyear 1985order which is statutoryin nature Thus the pleaof the not to interferein exerciseof writ jurisdiction deserves 1 The have relied upon a judgmentof the Honble O Court passed in ABL Internation Ltd And another vs Export 0 Cao CreditGuarantee Corporationof India Ltd And others 200413 SCC I 0 553 wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that even wherethere are I disputed questions of fact andthereis no absolutebar for entenaining the Z writ petitionjurisdictionunderArticle 226 of theConstitutionof India can It r be exercised Honble Supreme Courthas even gone to the extent of saying I that if factsrequire oral evidencecan also be taken in exerciseof writ jurisdictionWhere any break of contractualobligationsarises out of Z violation of principlesof naturaljusticeor arbitrary actlon of Staterequires CQ judicialscrutiny writ can be exercised Relevantobservations mW3 Z are contained in paragraph8 of the aforesaid judgmentwhich are tl here under As could be seen fromthearguments addressedin this appealand asalsofromthedivergent viewsofthe two couns belowone ofthe questions that fallsfor our considerationis whethera writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India s maintainableto enforcea contractualobligatlonof the Stateor its 4e byan aggrieved party In our opinionthis question is no more res integra and is settledby a largenumber ofjudicialpronouncementsof this Coun ln KN Guruswamy Vs The Stateof Mysoreand others 1955 I SCR 3051this Court held The next questionis whetherthe appellant can complainof this by way ofa writ In ouropinionhe could have done so in an ordinarycase The appellantis interestedin these contracts and has a right under the laws of the State to receive the same Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 281 7 1 CWPNo 1911of2010 etce 17 treatment and begiventhesame chanceas anybody else We would thereforein the ordinarycourse have giventhe appellant the wnt heseeks But owingto the time which this matter hastaken to reach us 6aconsequencefor which the is in no way to blame for he has done all hecould to havean earlyhearinglthere is barelya fonnight of thecontract letlto go A writ wouldthereforebeineffectiveandas it is not our practice to issue writswe must dismiss thisappeal andleavetheappellant contentwithan enunciationofthe law It is clear flom the above observationsof this Court in the said case though a writ was not issued on thefactsof thatcase thisCoun hasheld thaton a given m r set of factsif a Stateacts in an arbitrary manner even in a matter of contract an panycan approach the 0 court by way of writ under Article 226 of the 0 Constitution andthe court on factsofthe said caseis to granttherelief 99 I t5 The next questionwhich has been vehementlystressed by the I 1S existence of arbitrationclause in the contract agreement Z between the partiesRelevant extract of Clause 23 of the Arbitration 2 1 betweenthepattiesreadsas under 23Allthe disputes and differencearisingout of or lll C3 Z any manner touchingor concerningthis agreement 00 whatsoever except as to any matter the decision of am which is expresslyprovidedfor in thecontracoshall be Z referredto the sole arbitrationof the Director Food and Supplies Director of the Agencyor anyperson appointedby them in this behalf There will be no objection to any such that the person 1 appointed lS or was an employee of Food and Supplies and he had expressed views on all or any ofthe matter in dispute or difference The award of such arbitration shall be final and binding on both the partiesto this contract Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 282 q 4 4e CWP No 1911of2010 etc 18 Contentionof the in this regardis also required to be for followingreasoi For the session 20092010 thereis no disputebetweenthe parties breachof any contractual FCI has