I 250 t e 44 e CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION 442011 IieCWP Noel9ll of2010 MJs Parkash Rice MiIl eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others 0 Respondents 0 0 2P N03554 of2010 Hanuman Rice Mill SLAnother 0 eeePetitioners Versus Z The State ofHaryanaand others 2 rL I 3WP Noe5281of2010 1 Mls Inder SinghAjit Singh Z eeePetitioner Versus smwo State ofHaryanaand others Z Qm eRespondents WP N05282 of2010 Mls GanpatiRice Overseas eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others t f Noe5280 of2010 Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 251 CWP Noe 1911of2010etce 2 Mls AnnapurnaOverseas eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryanaand others CWP NoS279 of2010 MJs Jhandu Mal Tara Chand OeePetitioner Versus 1 r State of Haryanaand others 0 0 of 2010 0 Mls HaryanaRice Lande Petitioner Z Versus State of Haryanaand others r Z WP Noe5287of2010 Mls Shivn Shiva TradingCompany r OeePetitioner 7 Versus Z State of Haryanaand others 0 eRespondents WP Noe5284of2010 Mls Siri Ganesh Rice and General Mill 4e eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others Noe268 of2010 S1 3v Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 252 Ge CWP Noe 1911of2010 etCe 3 MJs Jai DurgaRice and General MiII v0 OeePetitioner Versus The StateofHaryanaand others MJs Hindustan Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus 1 The State ofHaryanaand others 0 0 I CWP No4917 of2010 C5 Mls Krishna Rice Si General Mills I eeePetitioner Z Versus 1 State of Haryanaand others C I eRespondents Z Mls Raj ShreeRice Mills OO OeePetitioner 7 Versus Z State ofHaryanaand others Respondents 4eCWP Noe5286of2010 lVIIsMahavir Rice 82General Mills C eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others Respondents No5285 of2010 4n Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 253 C4 4 1 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 4 MJs Hanuman Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others Respondents CWP No4937 of2010 Mls A One Rice Unit eeePetitioner Versus m 0 StateofFIaryanaand others 0 0 0 CORAM I Z HONBLE MReJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 2 C PRESENT2 MrTS Dhindsa Advocate MrOP GoyalSrAdvocate with I MRimplejeet Kaur Advocate f MrR0Shanna DAG Haryana Z AlhHari Pal Verma Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocatewith r MrArvind Seth Advocate 4t MrCS Dadwal Advocate Z Permod Kohli Je 11 With similarity of facts and common issues havingbeen involved in thes writ petitionsthe same are beingdisposedofby this common order The petitioners in all these petitions are Ivlillers engaged ln custom 6 millingof the paddypursuantto entered into with the HaryanaState Cooperative Supplyand MarketingFederation Limited hereinafter referred to as the HAFED Even thoughthere are separate impugned notlces 111 all these petitionshowever the contents being s Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 254 1 C 4 CWP No 1911of2010etc 5 common facts are beingnoticedfrom CWP No191 l of2010 State of Haryanaissued nce levy order called as Harna Rice Procurement Levy9Order 1985 referred to as 1985 order9This order has been issued under Section 30f the Essential CommoditiesAct 1955 with the objectiveofmaintaining the supplyofrice and for securingits equitabledistributionand availabilityat fair prices Clause 10 of the aforesaid 1985 order empowers the Govemment or the Director Food and Supplies to direct any rice miller to convert any stock or rL paddymto rice held by the govemmentor its agency or the Food 0 0 ofIndia on suchterms and conditions as may beprescribed by I 9 the Govemment or the Director In terms ofthe aforesaid Clause ofthe 1985 Order the StateofHaryanadecided to engagevarious rice mills in the State Z of Haryanafor Custom Millingof Rice commonlyknown as CMR A 2 detailed were formulated in this regardon 199 2 008 Q issued bythe Director Food and SuppliesHaryanaUnder the 1985 Order I and the the miller is requiredto deliver the rice after Z custom millingto the FCI Allotment to the millers lS to be made by the Qo District Level Committeeheadedbythe DeputyDirector and of 7 Z District Manager agenciesincludingthe Food Corporation 0 tl ofIndia It also provides not to make any allotment to a defaulter rice miller Clause 5 0 of the olicy lnnexure P4 providesfor execution of whereas Clause 01deals with the paymentof millingcharges C For the paddyseason 20082009 the petitionernamelyMls Parkash Rice ShivpuriRoad Kamal was entrusted with 1439 MT tonns paddyfor milling A formal agreementenvisagedunder Clause 50Oofthe policyalso came to be executed on 2692008 Condition 15 i of the agreelnent e Vo 6 Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 255 sIlIl CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 6 providesfor deliveryof the nce after miIIingas per prescribedquality specification Iaid down bythe HAFED directlyto the FCI Condition 17 of the agement deals with the mode and manner of deliveryThe said condition is reproduced as underl 7The deliveryof rice shall be deemed to have been completed bythe MillerlSecond Partyafter the stocks are loaded into wagons or delivered into the godowns as per m directions of the offlcial of the tZ First Party after necessary and 0 C0 approvaIof the quantityin accordance with the 0 prescribed procedure of the First Partyat the cost of the MillerlSecond Party It will be the responsibility of the Z MillerlSecond Partyto supply A note weightcheck C memo and all other relevant documents to the concerned agency alter the deliveryofrice for claiming C3 paymentfrom Food Corporation of India failingwhich Z e he shaII be Iiable to pay CCL rate of interest for the Oo delayedperiodAll the expenditure includinglabour vm0 Z loading unloading and any other etC incurred in connection with the deliveiy of ice within 8 Kms shall be borne by the MillerlSecond Patty In case nce 1S delivered beyond8 Kms the incurred by the MillerlSecond Cn Party on this account shall be reguIatedas per instructions ofGovernment oflndia 15 Even FCI has issued guidelines dated 1792008 regardinginspection I 9 Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 256 7 4Ml CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 7 sampleanalysis lIl respect of the procurement of paddy and ofrice stockduringKharifMarketing Seasons2008 Perusal of this documentreveals that proper procedure has been prescribed for ensuring the qualityof the nce its supplyand storageetc The quality has to be maintained as per the guidelines prescribed bythe Government of India etc It is admitted case of the partiesthat the petitioner delivered the milled rice to FCI upto the monthsof 2009 It is alleged that at the time of deliveryFCI Kamal carried out detailed analysis to test the prescribedquality of the nce delivered by the 0 C petitionerThe petitioner hasplacedon record varlous C5 reports111 respectof the suppliesmade by the petitionerThese are collectively marked as Annexure 17 with the writ petitionThe acceptance Z reportsindicate that the milled rice suppliedconforms to the prescribed as regards the qualityofthe rice supplied In the next paddyseason 20092010 againthe partiesentered into same kind of arrangementas in the previousSeason 200809 The Z petitioner was entrustedwith 4390 MT ofpaddyfor milling for the season 00 200910 After millingthe rice was to be delivered to FCI not later than 7 Z 332010 for which followingschedule of deliverywas prescribed under llv theagreement executed between thepartiesfor this season as well October and November 20091 20Ioofthe allotted paddy December 2009 25IdO aeee January2010 20 doe February2010 151do March 2010 15Io mdo 99 The milled rice was to be delivered to the FCI directlyin accordance Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 257 V 12 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 8 with the contractualstipulation in terms of the agreementdated 110009 The petitioner claims to have milled 184 MT of paddyfor the months of OctoberlNovember2009 and when deliverywas soughtto be made to FCl it refused to take the deliveryIt is stated that when the petitionermade enquiries regarding the reason for refusal of the FCI to take deliveiyit received letter dated 101 12009 1nnexure Pe99issued by the Pawan Gupta Depot Manager FCl Kamal wherebythe petitionerwas 1 communicated that the rice stocked by it at DBlll Bajidahad been C declared as Below RejectionLimit referred to as BR It 0 0 was further communicated that as a pre condition the petitioner is required C5 to replacethe rice at its own costs as per directions ofthe higherauthority for acceptingthe paddyfor the year 20091 0 A similar letter dated Z 27 112009 was received from the District ManagerHAFED Karnal u exure P askingthe petitioner to replacethe BRL stock of C rlce I within the specificationsas per directions of the FCI The receivedyet another letter dated 4 122009 from the Assistant Food and Z Supplies Officer Karnal on the same lines advisingthe petitioner to replace the BRL declared rice for the year 200809 to facilitate the deliveiyof the 7 Z nce pertainingto the paddyseason 2009 10 The petitionermade a L1m dated 21 122009 objectingto the demand of the FCI HAFED and Food and Supplies with the pleathat the delivery of rice for the previousyear 2008 was as perthe agreementand quality 4m specificationsand norms Petitioner insisted for takingdeliveryofthe Tlce for the season 200910 The petitioner has been served with the impugned notice dated 82010 0Annexure P issuedby the Area Manageraskingit to replacethe substandardstocks with stock ofapplicable for Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 258 e r r ese CWP No 1911of2010 etc 9 f season 200809within seven daysfailingwhich the Corporation reserves therightto disposeof substandardrice stock deliveredby the petitioner at its risk and costs without lrther notice and without prejudice to the legal includingbanningthe business dealingand to the State Govemment for blackisting This letter Annexure P1 was followed by another notice dated 151 2Ol O issued by the HAFED Annexure P advisingthe petitioner to replaceBRL rice 1 Annexure P Both these letters are subjectmatter of 0 in the presentpetitionThe petitioner submitted a detailedreply 0 0 dated252010 6Llnnexure P139to the FCI and HAFED I Challenge to theseorders is primarily on followinggroundsl C5 I i9The are not entitled to raise disputein respectof the Z for the season 200809 at the time of deliveryof rice for the 4e season20010 as both thetransactionsare distinct and arise out different agreements iiIDeliverymade duringthe season 200809 was duly acceptedas Z conforming to the prescribed and standards without any Qo and thus no disputeregarding its qualityand specifications could 3 Z be raised in the next season m iiiITestsconducted allegedlyin respectof deliveryfor the year 2008 wereat the back ofthe petitioner and without even informing the petitioner OvFresh inspection has been carried out after a periodof more than six rnonthsof the deliverywhen the rice supplied to the FCI was stacked and enee le out to the vagariesof weather 7 9 There has been violation of principles of naturaljustice There are three sets of repliesSled by the The replies Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 259 1 4 C 4 CWP Noe 1911of2010etc 10 filed by the FCI and the HAFED do not disputethe facts stated by the petitionerRavinder Malik District Food and SuppliesController Kamal has statedthat the miller was to deliver 67Io nce of the paddyduringthe cropyear 200809 after millingto the FCI within the stipulatedperiod1ee upto3132009 This delivery was made as per the termsand conditions of the agreementand milling of the petitionerhad been rended by District ManagerHAFED However no has 1 rejectedthe rice delivered bythe petitionera8er eightmonths and rlsed to acceptthe furtherrice ofcropyear 200C10 vide letterdated 101 1 009 0 C In the replyfiled by noA and 5 FCI their action 1S C5 so1ht to be justifiedon the groundthat nce suppliedby the petitioner duringthe season 200809 was found to be substandard i e Below 4 Z RejectionLimit againstthe laid down for the relevantyear It 2 1S further mentionedthat a super inspection was carried out by Shri Janak 0 Raj AGM QC FCI Zonal Office North Noida and the analysisrepons dated 23102009 to 28102009 64nnexures R511A Re511B Rw5I1CI Z showsthat the stocks deliveredbythepetitioner were below the laid down f norms BRL and the petitionerwas requiredto replacethe samefor 7 Z which sufficient opportunity was grantedto the petitionerIt is further Om allegedthat merelybecause stocks were acceptedby the FCI petitioner cannot be absolved of its liability It 1S stated that in fact petitioner succeeded in deliveringthe Below RejectionLimit stocks in connlvance with the officials ofthe CorporationIt is furthermentioned that offlcials of CorporationnamelyShri KCGarg Area ManagerSlO Dubey AGM 6QC9SllIGaba Managerand RajeshChaudharyTechnicaJ Assistant were placedunder and chargeleetedSome ofthem have even been 4 Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 260 v 1 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 11 relievedfrom service ofthe FCI Accordingto noA and 5 216 MT rice deliveredbythe petitionerduring the periodfrom 122009 to 532009 was found to be Below RejectionLimit causingloss to the Corporation to the tune ofRsA6A8 lacs It is mentioned that the petitioner was afforded an opportunityto replacethe substandard rice The were not onlyagainstthe petitionerbut also againstnumber of othermillers It is lrther mentioned that the offer of the Corporation was 1 by about 31 millers who replacedthe substandardrice supplied duringthe season 200809 but the petitioner failed to do soespondents 0 0 havealsopleadedthat there is an arbitrationclause beingClause N023 111 C5 the agreement entered between the petitionerand respondent no6 which I inter alia providesfor settlement of all disputesby referringto the sole Z arbitrationof the Director Food and Supplies Director of the Agency or any person appointedby them in this behalf The 0 have thus challenged the ofthe writ petition I CJ The petitionerhas filed replicationreiteratingits stand in the writ Z petitionThe additional fact stated in the replicationis that even as per OO reporttheinfraction in the specicationis inequitableIt lS 7 Z 61rtherpleadedthat the allegedsuper inspectionwas carried out after a Qm periodof more than six months and without any notice to the petitioner or associating it with such inspection I have heard learned counsel for the partiesat lengthand carehllly me gonethroughthe record Duringthe pendencyof this petition some interim orders were passedaskingthe FCI to acceptthe stocks of rice for the season 20092010 andpay 500Ioofthe billingchargesDetailed interim order in this regard was Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 261 C r6v CVVPNo 1911of2010etce 12 passed on April 9 2010 This order passedin CWP No191 1 of 2010 was extendedto all the writ petitions Issues involved in this petitionare two folds supplyof substandardrice for the season 2000094 iOSupplyof custom millingof rice for the season 20092010 both the transactionswere underdistinct and separate executed between the partiesgoverning the custom millingof paddyfor conversion to rice in accordancewith the contractual stipulations 0 andthe Schemeformulated under the 1985 Order It is common case of the 0 0 parties that all supplies were accepted bythe FCI 8om the petitioner fot the C5 season 200809 without any objection in respectof qualityspeci6cati0n quantitymode and manner of deliveryetc as prescribedunder the Z Not onlythat therice was acceptedeven payments vvere made 2 to the petitionerand their securitydepositreleased by the HAFED Ct obviouslywith the concurrence ofFCI Even FCI in its detailed counter did not disputethe deliveryof nce and the release of payments and security Z without any objectionThe case projectedby the FCI 1S that super Cll inspectlollwas carried out by the offlcials of the FCI wherein the rice Z suppliedby the petitioner was found substandard ie Below Rejection Om Limit BRLI This inspection was carried out by the officials of the FCI after six months ofthe final supplyby the petitionerlt is pertinent to note that the supplyofthe rice was to be made in five phasesbetween October to 49a4e Ivlarch At no stage duringthe periodof supplyspreading inonths over slX anyobjectionwas raised regardingthe qualityspecications of the nce suppliedIt was only when the entire supplywas made and after release of payments andsecurityand aer six months the super inspection was said to Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 262 l 40 p CWP No 1911of2010etc 13 9A be carried out No explanationhas been rendered by the FCI for not carrylngout any inspection or analysisduringthe six months of supply periodor immediately on of supply To the contrary the have placedon record the analysisreportin respectofthe quality ofthe deliveryofrice madebythem Theseanalysis were also carriedout by the FCI Apart8om above the test said to be conducted by the FCI duringsuper inspectionwas carried out at the back of the m It would have been more prudentto associate the petitioner lr when duringsuper inspectionany deficiencywas noticed in the rice 0 Cao supplied bythe petitionerbut the FCI chose not to associatethe petitioner C the suppliersor even inform them It has also come on record that the I custommilled rice was lyingin the depotof the FCI The conditionunder Z which storagewas made has not beenbrought on record Admittedlyrice lS a perishable item It needsto be keptunderprescribed condition for Ionger 0 storage life If it is left to vagaries of weather it is open to perishNo such rnaterialhas been brought on record or even pleadedin the replyregarding Z the storageconditions of the rice suppliedby the petitionerduringthe m season 200809 In any case the petitioners were not putto any notlce Or vao Z provided an opportunity of beingheardregarding the quality ll beforecarrying out the test or even at the time the test was conducted This hasresulted into serious violation ofthe principlesofnatural justiceNotice to the petitionerwasgivenonlywith regardto of the alleged 4ea substandardrice However at the time of determination whether the rice is substandardor not no notice was ever issued to the petitionerThus action of the in re81singdeliveryof rice for the season 20020 10 is not justiflableunder any Clrcumstances have referred to Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 263 r CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 14 judgmentof the Honble SupremeCouit passedin the case of Tapan Kumar Sadhukhan vse Food Corporationof India and others199616 SupremeCourt Cases 101 In this judgmentHonble Supreme Coun has the need for improvingpublichealth While dealingwith the provisions of Food Corporation of India Act 1964 it has been observed that it is the obligation of the Stateor its agency to raise nutritional level and improvepublichealth It has also been held that the State should not m allow substandard food grainsto reach market for human C without upgrading the same so as to make it flt for human 0 0 While referringto this judgmentit has been pleadedon behalf of 49 that substandardrice cannot be utilized bythe State for supply I underthe publicdistributionsystemas it is injurious to publichealth I fail Z to understandhow this judgment is relevant in so far as the interse dispute between the petitioner and is concerned Stateand its agencys obligation to providefood grainsfit for human to the needy persons who are dependent upon the State sponsoredpublicdistribution Z system cannot be disputedHowever the question in the presentpetitionlS ril breach of mutual contractual obligationsbetween the partiesand Z thereof This judgment does not helpthe in any manner exceptto obligatethem to supplyonlysuch food grainsas are fit for human consumptionbyupgrading the substandardfood grains have also pleadedagainstthe of the Wrlt 1 petltlOIlon two counts flrstlythat the writ petitioninvolves disputed questionsof fact and thus discretionaryremedyunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitionersSecondlythere 1S an arbitration Clause No23 in the contract agreement between the panies Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 264 Ie CWP Noe 1911of2010 etc 15 and the onlyremedyavailable to the petitioner 1Sto invoke the remedyby wayofarbitration It is tnle that theHighCourt while exercisingwritjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to entertain a writ petitioninvolvingsenous disputed questions of fact However this isnota rule of law but a rule of discretion where the HighCourt exercises a self imposed restriction to avoid to adjudicate upon disputedquestions of fact W in exerciseofwritjurisdictionIn the presentcase there does not seem to be 0 anyseriousdisputedquestions of fact so as to decline the pleaof the 0 0 petitioner in the writ petitionWhat is soughtto be projectedas disputed I CD questions of fact is the supplymade by the petitionerduringthe season I 20082009 have pleadedthat the nce suppliedwas Z substandard whereas the petitionershave pleadedthe same to be V conforming to the prescribed quality The supplyof rice its quantltyetCe 1S an admitted positionamongstthe partiesThe petitioners have placedon record analysis conducted bythe Food Corporation oflndia Z certi61ing the quality prescribed under the agreementand the 0 norms laid down by the Govemmentof India This fact 1Snot disputedIt 7 Z has however beenpleadedbythe that when a super inspection was conducted after SlX months of the supplyrice supplywas found to be substandard Such tests were not condUcted in the presence ofthe petitioner or with their association Under these circumstances it cannot be said that e1 there are serious disputedquestions of fact The petitionersare disputing the analysisthe test conducted by the at their back whereas the are disputingearlier analysisconducted by their own officials certifyingthe quality So what is beingdisputed is the action Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 265 pJ 4 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etCe 16 oftheirown employees bythe This Court is not calledupon to decide aboutthe question whether the rice suppliedbythe petitionerduring theseason 200809 is substandardor not Court is onlyconcemed with the breach of contractualobligationand the violation of the conditions laid downin the year 1985 order which is statutoryin nature Thus the pleaof the not to interferein exercise of writ jutiiction deserves 1 The petitioners have relied upon a judgment of the Honble L Court passedin ABL Internation Ltd And another vs Export 0 0 Credit GuaranteeCorporationof India Ltd And others 10413 SCC 2E C5 553 wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that even where there are questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for the Z writpetitionjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can 0 beexercised Honble Supreme Court has even gone to the extent of saying I that if facts requireoral evidence can also be taken in exercise of writ jurisdictionWhere any break of contractualobligationsarisesout of Z violation of principles of naturaljusticeor arbitrary action of Staterequires Oo judicialscrutiny wnt jurisdiction can be exercised Relevant observations Z are contained in paragraph8 of the aforesaid judgmentwhich are r here under As could be seen from thearguments addressedin this appealand asalso from thedivergent viewsofthetwo courts below one ofthe questions that falls for our considerationis whethera writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India is maintainableto enforcea contractualobligationof the Stateor its ee byan aggrieved party In our opinionthisquestionis no more res integraand is settledby a largenumberofjudicialpronouncements ofthis Coun ln KN Guruswamy Vs The State of Msore and others 1955 I SCR 3051this Court heldl The next questionis whetherthe appellant can complainof 1his by way of a writ In our opinionhe could have done so tn an ordinary case The appellantis interested in these contracts and has a right under the laws of the State to receive the same Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 266 V e Imv CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 17 treatmentand be giventhesame chanceas anybody else We would thereforein the ordinary course have giventhe appellant the writ he seeks But