'^2; COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISJONBENCH HON'BLE SHRI GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRi DHSRENDRA MSSHRA, J. PETITtONER f.P.(ClNo.4S62of2008 Rajesh Kumar Slngh, aged 40 yrs., S/o Shri G.P. Singh, r/o Shri Girdhar Kunj, New Purenia, Ravigram, Raipur, C.G. Versus 1. Unlon of India, through Divisional Raiiway Manager (Commercjal), S.E.C. Rty., Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Senior Dlvisionai Commercial Manager, S.E.C. Rty., DRM Complex, WRS Coiony, Raipur, (C.G.) WRST PETSTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTSOIS2 OF INDIA Preserst: Shri Bhishma Kinger, iearned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Choudhary, Searned standing counsel for the respondents. ORDER %ih (8m September, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsei forthe parties are heard on admission. 2) Shri Amit Choudhary. learned Standing Counsei for the respondents has raised a preiiminary objection about the maintainabiiity of the writ petition on the ground that as there js an arbitration clause in the agreement, the wrlt petition is liabie to be dismissed in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of ABL International Limited and another Vs Export Credlt yip^] c^ ^ Guarantee Corporation of Endia LImited and others reported in 3 SCC 553. 3) The petitioner in this writ petition is chailenging the termination of his contract by the respondents videorder dated 25.08.2008 (Annexure P/4) on account of the petltioner's default in making payment of instalment, which fe!E due on 21st Juiy, 2008. 4) Shri Bhishma Kinger, iearned counsel for the petitionsr submitted that the petitioner, in fact has offered the amount of Instalment to the respondents which was not accepted by them. 5) Shri Amit Choudhary, learned Standing Counse! for the respondents has seriously disputed the correctness of the above factuai situation. 6) Thus, 'rt is apparent that the petitioner's entire ciaim in this writ petition is based on disputed questions of fact, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition, as the same would require ieading of evidence by the parties which course is not permissible in a writ proceedings. 7) The writ petition, therefore, Is liable to be dismissed as the same involves disputed questions of fact. 6) That apart, as there is an aroitration clause in the-agreement, the writ petitlon otherwise aiso is not maintainabie in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of ABL Internationai Llmited (supra). 9) The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed with the'liberty to the petltloner to avail other remedies which may be available to him under the relevant provisions of law. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge \uv