4 l 492 1 P1 CWP No 1911of2010etce 1 9p 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2 e1 DATE OF DECISION 4402011 1 11eCWPNo1911 of2010 Y Mls Parkash Rice Mill OeePetitioner Versus 1 StateofHaryanaand others Ct eRespondents 0 C3 7P N0e3554of2010 I Mls Hanuman Rice Mill St Another 0 I eeePetitioners Versus Z The StateofHaryanaand others 2 r I 1CWP N05281 of2010 Mls Inder SinghAjit Singh Z ePetitioner m Versus m StateofHaryanaand others Z CL WP Noe5282of2010 Mls GanpatiRice Overseas 4em eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others 9 Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 493 r 4 11 CWP No 1911of2010etce 2 eeePetitioner Versus Stateof Haryanaand others 6CWP N05279 of2010 Mls Jhandu Mal Tara Chand eeePetitioner Versus 1 r StateofHaryanaand others 0 U I of2010 0 Mls HaryanaRice Land I eeePetitioner Z Versus Stateof Haryanaand others r I Respondents CJ Z WP Noe5287of2010 Mls Shiva Shiva TradingCompany m ePetitioner wao Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others Qm Mls Siri Ganesh Rice and General Mill e eaePetitioner Versus State of Haryanaand others ts of2010 4 Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 494 C CWP Noe 1911of2010etce 3 tMls Jai DurgaRice and General Mill eeePetitioner Versus The StateofHaryanaand others Respondents MJs Hindustan Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus j r The StateofHaryanaand others 0 C0 I J2CWP N004917of2010 C5 Mls Krishna Rice S General Mills I eeePetitioner Z Versus Stateof Haryanaand others r I Z Mls Raj ShreeRice Mills ao eeePetitioner va Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others ll N0e5286of2010 MJs Mahavir Rice General Mills C eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryanaand others 2espondents Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 495 eL 4 CWPNoe 1911of2010 etc 4 Hanuman Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus Stateof Haryanaand others eRespondents 6CWP NoA937 of2010 Mls A One Rice Unit eeePetitioner Versus j StateofHaryanaand others 0 0 I C5 CORAM I Z HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT MrTS Dhindsa Advocate MrOP GoyalSrAdvocatewith I Msllimplejeet Kaur Advocate C3 MrRSharma DAG Haryana Z Mrl4ari Pal Verma Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocatewith m MrArvind Seth Advocate MrKS Dadwal Advocate m Z Permod KohliJe With similarity of factsand common issues havingbeeninvolved in thesewrit petitionstt same are beingdisposedofby this common order The petitioners in all thesepetitions are Millers engaged in custom 4 millingof the paddypursuantto entered into with the HaryanaState Cooperative Supplyand MarketingFederationLimited hereinafler referred to as the HAFEDI Even thoughthere are separate impugnednotices in all these petitionshowever the contents being 1 Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 496 CV 1 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 5 1 dommonfactsare beingnoticed om CWP Nol91 l of2010 State of Haryanaissued rice procurementlevyorder called as Rice Procurement Levy Order 1985 hereinafterrefened to as 1985 order This order has beenissuedunder Section 30f the Essential Commodities Act 1955with theobjective thesupplyofrice and for securingits distributionand availability at fair prices Clause10 of the aforesaid 1985order empowersthe Governmentor the m DirectorFood andSupplies to directany rice miller to conven any stock or r paddyinto rice held by the govemmentor its agency or the Food 0 0 ofIndia on suchterms andconditionsas may beprescribed by C5 theGovemmentor theDirector In termsofthe aforesaidClauseofthe 1985 I Order the StateofHaryanadecidedto engage various rice mills in the State Z of Haryanafor Custom Millingof Rice commonlyknown as CMR A m detailed were fonnulated in this regardon 1992 008 r 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 1Sto be madebythe C District Level CommitteeheadedbytheDeputyDirectorand of 2 Z District Managerof procurementagenciesincludingthe Food Corporation L1 ofIndia It also provides not to make any allotmentto a defaulterrice miller Clause 5 6O of the 0olicy0AnnexureP41 providesfor execution of whereasClauseGl dealswith the paymentof millingcharges 4 For the paddyseason 20082009 thepetitionernamelyMls Parkash Rice ShivpuriRoad Karnal was entrusted with 1439 MT tonns paddyfor millingA fonnal agreementenvisaged under Clause S o ofthe policyalso came to be executed on 2682008 Condition 15 6i9of the agreement Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 497 e4 1 414 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 6 7 for deliveryof the rice after millingas per quality iaid down bythe HAFED directly to theFCI Condition 17 of the deals with the mode and manner of deliveryThe said conditionis as underl 17The deliveryof rice shall be deemedto have been bythe MillerlSecondPartyafterthe stocksare loadedinto wagonsor deliveredinto thegodowns as per m directions of the official of the 0 First Partyafler necessary and 0 0 approvalof the quantityin accordance with the I C5 prescribed procedure of the First Partyat the cost of the I MillerlSecond Party It will be the of the Z MillerlSecond Partyto supply A note weightcheck C memo andalI otherrelevantdocumentsto the concerned I agency afterthe deliveryofrice for claiming l3 paymentfrom Food Corporation of India failingwhich Z he shall be liable to pay CCL rate of interestfor the 0 delayedperiod All the expenditureincludinglabour m2 Z loading unloading and anv other expenditure etc incurredin connectionwith thedelivery of ice within 8 Kms shall be bome by the 4 MilIerlSecond Party In case nce 1S deliveredbeyond8 ee Kms the expenditure incurred by the MillerlSecond Party on this account shall be regulatedas per instructions of Government of India 99 Even FCI hasissued guidelines dated1792008 regardinginspection Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 498 44a 7 1 CWPNo 1911of2010 etc mple analysislll of the of paddyand ofrice stockduring Seasons2008a09 Perusalofthis documentrevealsthat proper has been forensuring the qualityof the rice its supplyand storageetc The quaiity hasto be maintainedasper the by the Governmentof India etc It is admitted case of theparties thatthe petitloner deliveredthe milled rice to FCI uptothemonthsofFebruarvlarcl 2009 lt is alleged 1 thatat the time of deliveryFCI Kamal carried out detailedanalysis to r test the quality of the rice delivered by the 0 U The petitioner hasplaced on recordvarious I 0 reports111 respect of the suppliesmade by the petitionerThese are I markedas Annexure P7 with thewrit petitionThe acceptance Z indicate that the milled rice suppIiedconfonns to the as regards the qualityofthe rice supplied C4 I In the next paddyseason 200920 10 againthe partiesenteredlnto r same kind of arrangement as ln the previousSeason 200809 The Z was entrustedwith 4390MT of paddyfor millingfor theseason Ol 200910 After millingthe rice was to be deliveredto FCI not laterthan 7 Z 312010 for which followingscheduleof deliverywas prescribed under executedbetweenthepartiesfor this season as well October and November 20091 20Ioofthe allottedpaddy December2009 25Io 10 4 January 2010 251edo February 2010 15Io doe March 2010 15Io do 59 The milled rice was to be delivered to the FCl directlyin accordance Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 499 V 4 1 a4 CWP No 1911of2010etc 8 S 1 14iththe contractual in terms of the agreementdated 102009 The petitioner claims to havemilled 184 MT of paddyfor the monthsof OctoberlNovember 2009 andwhen delivery was sought to be madeto FCI lt refusedto take the deliveryIt is statedthat when the petitioner made enquiries the reason for refusal of the FCI to take deliveryit received letter dated 10 11 2009 6Annexure I91 issued by the Pawan Gupta Depot Manager FCI Kamal wherebythe Hlas 1 communicatedthat the rice stockedby lt at D13111Bajidahad been r1 declaredas Below RejectionLimit 0lereinafter referredto as BR It 0 0 was 61rthercommunicatedthat as a pre condition thepetitioner is required I t5 to replacethe rice at its own costs as per directionsof thehigherauthority for accepting the paddyfor the year200910 A similar Ietter dated Z 27 112009 was received from the District Manager HAFED Kamal 2 Annexure P10 askingthe to repiacethe BRL stock of nce within the speci6cationsas per directions of the FCI The petitioner CJ receivedyet anotherletter dated4 2009 from the Assistant Food and Z SuppliesOfficer Kamal on the same lines advising thepetitioner to replace oo the BRL declaredrice for the year 200809 to facilitatethe deliveryofthe 17 Z nce pertainingto the paddyseason 2009 10 The petitionermade a Qm dated 21122009 objectingto the demand of the FCI HAFED andFood and Supplies with the pleathat the delivery of rice for the previousyear 200809 was as perthe agreementand quality 4100 specificationsand norms Petitionerinsisted for takingdeliveryofthe rice for the season 2009m10 The petitionerhas been served with the impugned notice dated 81 2010 0AnnexurePI issued bythe Area Manageraskingit to replacethesubstandardstocks with stock of applicablespeci6cations for Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 200 er 6 eer CWP Noe 1911of2010 etc 9 1 season 200809 within seven daysfailingwhich the reserves therightto dispose ofsubstandardrice stockdeliveredbythepetitioner at its risk and costs without Rlrthernoticeand without prejudice to the legal includingbanningthe business dealingand to the State Govemment for This leuer 6Annexure PI was followed by anothernotice dated 151 2 010 issuedby the HAFED lnnexure P advisingthe petitioner to BRL rice 1 129 Both these Ietters are subjectmatter of challenge in the presentpetitionThe submitteda detailedreply 0 C dated 2512010 0Annexure P to theFCI and HAFED I C5 Challenge to theseordersisprimarily on followinggroundsle I iThe are not entitled to raise dispute111 respectof the Z for the season 200809 at the time of deliveryof rice for the 4e season20090 as boththetransactionsare distinct andarise out different r agreements I t 6iiDeliverymade duringthe season 200809 was duly acceptedas Z to the speciflcations and standardswithout anv QO objectionand thusno dispute its qualityand could 7 Z be raisedin the next seasot r iioTestsconducted allegedlyin respectof deliveryfor the year 200809 were at the back oftheetitioner and without even informing the petitionerO 0v Fresh has beencarried out after a periodof more than six months of the deliverywhen the nce suppliedto the FCI was stacked and eeeV Ieft out to the vagariesof weather 6v 9 There has been violation of principlesofnaturaljustice There are three sets of repliesfiled by the The replies Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 201 4 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etc 10 1 filedby the FCI and the HAFED do not disputethe facts stated by the petitionerRavinder Malik District Food and Supplies Controller Kamal has statedthat the miller was to deliver67Io rice of the paddyduringthe cropyear 200809 aRermillingto theFCI within the period 1e upto3132009 This delivery was made as per the termsandconditions of the agreementand milling of the petitionerhad been re81nded by District ManagerHAFED However no has Pm rejected the rice deliveredbythepetitioner aftereightmonthsandrefusedto acceptthe rtherrice ofcropyear 200t10 vide letterdated 101 12009 0 0 In the replyfiled by noA and 56FC their action lS I 0 soughtto be justifiedon the groundthat nce suppliedby the petitioner duringthe season 200809 was found to be substandard 3elow Z RejectionLimit against the laid down for the relevantyear lt 1S further mentionedthat a super inspection was carried out by ShriJanak r I Raj AGM QCI FCI Zonal Office North Noida and the analysisreports dated 231 02 009 to 28102009 lnnexures R511A RSllB RIlCl Z showsthat the stocks deliveredbythepetitioner were below the Iaiddown f10 norms BRL and the petitionerwas required to replacethe same for 7 Z which sufficient opportunitywas grantedto the petitionert is further Qm allegedthat merelybecause stocks were acceptedby the FCl petitioner cannot be absolved of its Iiability It is stated that in fact petitioner succeeded in deliveringthe Below RejectionLimit stocks in connivance C e with the officials ofthe Corporationlt is furthermentionedthat offlcials of CorporationnamelyShri KCGarg Area ManagerS Dubey AGM 0QC9SlllGaba Managerand Rajesh Technical Assistant were placedunder suspension and chargeleeted Someofthem have even been Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 202 v9 e I e04 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 11 L relievedfrom serviceofthe FCI According to noA and 5 216 MT ricedeliveredbythe duringtheperiodfrom 1222009 to 53 2009 was found to be Below RejectionLimit causingloss to the to the tune of RsA6A8 lacs It is mentionedthat thepetitioner was affordedan to replacethe substandardrice The were not onlyagainstthe but also againstnumberof othermillers It is furthermentionedthat the oHer of the Corporation was j by about 31 millers who replacedthe substandardnce supplied C duringthe season 200809 but the failed to do so 0 O havealso pleaded thatthereis an arbitrationclausebeingClauseN023 in I 0 the agreemententeredbetweenthepetitionerand respondent no6 which I inter alia providesfor settlementof all disputesby referrlngto the sole Z arbitrationof the Director Food and Supplies Director 2 of the Agencyor any person by them in this behalf The I have the ofthe writ petition C The petitionerhas filed replication its stand in the writ Z petitionThe additional fact statedin the is that even as per 00 inspectionreporttheinaction in the speciScation is It is m Z 61rtherpleaded that the allegedsuper was carried out after a periodof more than six monthsand withoutany notlce to the petitloner or associatingit with such inspection I have heard learnedcounsel for the partiesat lengthand carefully 4 gonethrough the record Duringthe pendencyof this petitionsome interim orders were passedaskingthe FCI to acceptthe stocks ofrice for the season 2009e2010 andpay 500Iofthe billingchargesDetailedinterimorderin this was Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 203 01 4w CWP No 1911of2010etce 12 ll 1 assed on April9 2010This orderpassed in CWP Nol91 1 of 2010 was extendedto all thewrit petitions Issuesinvolved in this petitionare two folds supplyof substandardrice for the season 2008 iiSupplyof custom millingof rice for theseason 200t2010 both the transactionswere under distinct and separate executedbetweentheparties the custom millingof 1m paddyfor conversionto rice in accordance with the contractual stipulations r andthe Schemeformulatedunderthe 1985Order It is common case of the 0 0 parties thatall supplies were acceptedbythe FCI from thepetitionerfor the I t5 season 200809 without any objection in respectof quality I quantitymode and manner of deliveryetc as prescribedunder the Z Not onlythattherice was acceptedeven payments were made 2 to the petitionerand their securitydepositreleased by the HAFED C I obviously with theconcurrence ofFCl Even FCl in its detailedcounter did not disputethe deliveryof nce and the releaseof payments and security Z without any objectionThe case projectedby the FCl 1S that super oo inspectionwas carrid out by the offlcials of the FCI wherein the rice 7 Z suppliedby the petitioner was found substaridard ie Below Rejection 0m Limit BRLI This was carriedout by the offlcials of the FCI after six monthsof the final supplybythe petttionerItispertinenttonote 6 that the supplyofthe rice was to be made in 6ve phasesbetweenOctoberto 4eed March At no stageduringthe periodof supplyspreading over six months any objection Was raised regardingthe qualityspecificationsof the rice suppliedIt was onlywhenthe entire supplywas made and after release of payments and securityandafter six months the super inspection Wassaid to Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 204 r 4 r Ivv 1911of2010etce 13 tle cauied Out No has been renderedby the FCl for not carryingout any inspectlonor analysisduringthe SlX monthsof supply periodor on of supply To the contrary the haveplaced on recordtheanalysisreportin respectofthe quality ofthe deliveryofrice madebythem Theseanalysis were also carriedout by the FCI Apartfrom above the test saidto be conductedby the FCI duringsuper inspectionwas carried out at the back of the m It would have been more prudentto associate the petitioner Ct when duringsuper inspectionany deflciencywas noticed in the rice 0 O bythepetitioner but the FCI chosenot to associatethe I 45 the suppliers or even inform them lt has also coine on record that the I custom milled rice was lyingin thedepotof the FCI The conditionunder Z which storagewas madehasnot beenbrought on record Admittedlyrice 1S 2 a perishable item It needs10 be keptunderprescribed conditionfor longer storage lif If it is left to vagaries of weather il is open to perishNo such I rnaterialhas beenbrought on record or even pleaded in thereplyregarding Z the storageconditions of the rice suppliedby the petitionerduringthe OO season 2008e09 In any case the petitioners were not put to any notice or W7 Z provided an opportunity of beingheardregarding thequalityspeciflcation tl beforecarryingout the test or even at thetimethetest was conductedThis hasresulted into serious violation of the principles of natural justiceNotice to the petitioner was givenonlywith regardto of the alleged 4a substandardrice However at the time of determination whether the rice 1S substandard or not no notice was ever issued to the petitionerThus action of the in refusingdeliveryof rice for the season 200920 10 lS not justiflableunder any circumstances have referred to Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 205 eO r1 e 1014 CWP No 1911of2010 etca 14 6 jdgmentof the Honble SupremeCourt passedin the case of Tapan KumarSadhukhan vs Food Corporationof lndia and others199696 Court Cases 1010ln this Honble Supreme Coun has the need for improving publichealth While dealingwith the provlsionsof Food of India Act 1964 it has been observed thatit is the obligation of the Stateor its agencyto raise nutritionalIevel andimprove publichealth lthas also beenheldthatthe Stateshould not j allow substandard food grainsto reach marketfor human 0 without upgrading the same so as to makeit St for human 0 Co While referringto this judgmentit has been pleadedon behalf of I C5 that substandardrice cannot be utilized bythe Statefor supply I underthe publicdistributionsystemas it lS injurious to publichealth l fail Z to understandhow this is relevantin so far as the interesedispute between the petitioner and is concerned Stateand its agencvs r obligation to providefood grainsfit for human consumption 10 the needy I t persons who are upon the Statesponsoredpublicdistribution Z systemcannot be disputedHowever thequestionin the presentpetition1S l11 breach of mutual contractual obligationsbetween the panies and 7 Z thereof This judgment doesnot helpthe in any tl manner exceptto obligate themto supplyonlysuch food grainsas are Ot for humanconsumptionby upgrading the substandardfood grains have alsopleadedagalnstthe ofthe writ 1 petltion on two counts firstlythat the writ petitioninvoives disputed questionsof fact and thus remedyunder Anicle 226 of the Constitutionof India is not available to the petitionersSecondlythere is an arbitrationClauseNo3 in the contract ageement between the parties Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 206 1 4 CWP No 1911of2010etc 15 fnd theonlyremedy availableto the lS to invoke theremedyby wayof arbitration It is true thattheHighCourt while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to entertain a writ petition involving seriousdisputed of fact However this isnota ruleof law but a rule of discretionwherethe HighCourt exercisesa self restrictionto avoid to adjudicate upon disputedquestions of fact in exerciseof writjurisdiction In thepresentcase theredoesnot seem to be anyserious disputed of fact so as to decline the pleaof the 0 Co in the writ petitionWhat is soughtto be projectedas disputed I C9 of fact is the supplymadeby the duringthe season I 2008e2009 have pleadedthat the nce suppliedwas Z substandardwhereas the have pleadedthe same to be to the qualityspecifications The supplyof rice its r I quantityetc lS an admittedpositionamongstthe partiesThe petitloners t haveplacedon recordanalysisconductedbythe Food oflndia Z thequalityspeciflcations prescribed underthe agreementandthe C0 norms laid down bythe Govemmentof India This fact ls not disputedIt a7 Z has however beenpleadedbythe that when a super inspection tl was conducted after six months of thesupplyrlce supplywas found to be substandard Such tests were not conducted lll the presence of the petitioner or with their association Under thesecircumstances it cannot be said that there are seriousdisputedquestions of fact The petitioners are disputing the analysisthe test conducted bythe respondents at their back whereas the are disputingearlier analysisconducted by their own omcials thequalityspeci6cations So what is beingdisputed is the action Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 207 1 GWPNo 1911of2010 etc 16 4 6ftheir own bythe ThisCourt is not called uponto decide aboutthequestion whetherthericesupplied bythepetitioner during theseason 200809 is substandardor no Coun is onlyconcernedwith the breachof contractualobligation and the violation of the conditionslaid down in theyear 1985order which is statutory1n nature Thus the pleaof the not to interferein exercise of writ jurisdictiondeserves 1 The have relied upon a judgment of the Honble 5 Court passed in ABL Internation Ltde And another vse Export 0 0 Credit GuaranteeCorporationof India Ltd And others 200413 SCC 0 553 wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that even wherethere are I questions of fact and thereis no absolute bar for entenaining the Z writpetitionjurisdiction underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof India can beexercised Honble Court has even gone to the extent of saying I that if factsrequireoral evidencecan also be taken lll exerciseof writ L0 jurisdictionWhereany break of contractualobligationsarises out of Z violation of principlesof naturaljusticeor arbitrary action of Staterequires 0 judicialscrutiny writ jurisdiction can be exercised Relevant observations avm3 Z are contained in 8 of the aforesaid judgmentwhich are 0 reproduced hereunderl As could be seen fromtheargumentsaddressedin this appealand asalso fromthedivergent viewsofthe two couns belowone ofthe questions that fallsfor our considerationis whethera writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof India is maintainableto enforce a contractualobligationof the Stateor its 4eeee byan aggricved party In our opinionthisquestion is no more res integra and is settledby a largenumberofjudicialpronouncementsofthis Coun In K Guruswamy Vs The Stateof Mysoreand others l 1955 SCR 3051this Court held The next questionis whetherthe appellant can complainof this by way of a writ In our opinionhe could have done so In an ordinary case The appellantisinterestedin 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 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 208 1 4 4m CWPNo 1911of2010etce 17 i 4 1 and begiventhesame chanceas anybody else We wouki thereforein the ordinarycourse have giventhe the writ he seeks But owingto the time which lhis matter hastakento reach us a consequencefor which the appelantis in no wayto blame for he has done all he could to havean earlyhearingthereis barely a fonnight of thecontmct leftto go A writ wouldthereforebeineffectiveandas it is not our practlceto lSSUe writswe must dismiss thisappeal and Ieavetheappellant contentwithan enunciationofthe lau It is clear from the above observationsof this Court in the said case thougha wril was not issuedon thefactsof thatcase thisCoun hasheld that on a given 1 setof factsif a Stateacts in an arbitrary manner even in amatter of contract an partycan approach the 0 court by way of writ under Article 226 of the 0 Constitution andthe court on factsofthe said caseis to grantherelief 57 9 The next questionwhich has been vehemently stressed by the I is existence of arbitrationclause in the contract agreement Z betwee the partiesRelevant extract of Clause 23 of the Arbitration C4 betweentheparties readsas under I 23 All the disputesand differencearisingout of or in Z any manner touchingor concerningthis agreement m whatsoever except as to any matter the decision of mm vvhichis provided for in thecontractlshall be Z referredto the sole arbitrationof the Director Food and Om Director of the Agencyor anyperson appointed by them in this behalf There will be no objection to any such that the person 1 appointed is 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 arbitrationshall be Onal and binding on both the partiesto this contract Uma 2014.05.05 15: 27 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 209 l6 r 18 44r CWPNoe 1911of2010 etce 4 is also required to be 1 Contentionof the in this