IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3330 of 2009 SIDHESHWAR KUMAR & ORS Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD& ORS ----------- 2. 19.3.2009 Heard Mr. D.K.Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners. On the own showing of the petitioner once there being an agreement between the petitioner in capacity of Franchisee and the Board, the only remedy for redressal of his grievance against the impugned order would be to invoke clause 9.2 of the said agreement, which reads as follows: “9.2 Dispute Resolution. A. Any dispute between the Franchisee and the BSEB arising out of or in connection with his agreement shall be first tried to be settled through mutual negotiation. B. In the event of such differences or disputes between the Franchisee and the Electrical Superintending Engineer not settled through mutual negotiation within thirty days of such dispute, the matter shall be referred individually (or jointly) to the G.M. cum E.E. for a decision. C. The Franchisee and the BSEB 2 shall undertake to carry out any decision relating to such dispute without delay.” In presence of the aforesaid clause of agreement the petitioner obviously cannot maintain this writ application without availing/ invoking the alternative efficacious remedy of arbitration. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the terms and conditions of the agreement was sought to be affected by the instruction issued by the Chief Engineer of the Board dated 6.1.2009 is only to be noticed for its being rejected, inasmuch as the decision to engage the services of Franchisee and/or lay down the fresh conditions is always with the Board and therefore, what condition would be incorporated for fresh agreement cannot be gone into a writ petition. As a matter of fact, it was/is always open for the contractor/ tenderer to accept or to refuse the same but on that score the existing contractor cannot be claim any preferential right to continue with the contract on the old terms and conditions. 3 This aspect of the matter, however, may be raised by the petitioner before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/