265 Iel 11 re CWP No 1911of2010 etCe 1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 DATE OF DECISION2 4A2011 IeCWP No1911 of2010 MJs Parkash Rice Mill eeePetitioner Versus Stateof Haryanaand others a 0 0 2P Noe3554of2010 J Mls Hanuman Rice Mill Si Another t5 eePetitioncrs I Versus Z The State ofHaryanaand others r I 1CWP N05281 of2010 C3 Mls Inder SinghAjit Singh Z eeePetitioner QO Vcrsus W2 State of Haryanaand others Z Qm Respondents Ie4WP Noe5282 of2010 Mls GanpatiRice Overseas 4pa evePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others a Respondents l V S Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 r Il70 4 2 CWPNo 1911of2010 etce Mls AnnapurnaOverseas eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others Respondents CWP No5279of2010 Mls Jhandu Mal Tara Chand eeePetitioner Versus i 1 StateofHaryanaand others 0 0 Respondents I of2010 C9 Mls HaryanaRice Lande I eePetitioner Z Versus Stateof Haryanaand others C 4 I C WP N005287of 2010 Z Mls Shiva Shiva TradingCompany oo eeePetitioner mm Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others Om Mls Siri Ganesh Rice and General Mill 4aeww0 eeePetitioner Versus Stateof Haryanaand others of2010 Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 C 1 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 3 Mls Jai DurgaRice and General Mill OeePetitioner Versus The StateofHaryanaand others Mls Hindustan Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus j r The StateofHaryanaand others 0 0 I J2CWP NoA917 of2010 C5 Mls Krishna Rice 82 General Mills I OeePetitioner Z Versus StateofHaryanaand others 0 I Respondents CO Z MJs Raj ShreeRice Mills C eeePetitioner vao Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others 1140CWPNoe5286 of2010 Mls Mahavir Rice O General MiIls C ePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others Respondents 4 Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 4J e V 44 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 4 IVIJsHanuman Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus r9 StateofHaryanaand others Respondents CWP N04937 of2010 Mls A One Rice Unit eeePetitioner Versus m StateofHaryanaand others 0 C40 Respondents I C5 CORAM Z HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI 2 r PRESENT MrTS Dhindsa Advocate MrOP GoyalSrAdvocatewith I MsimplejeetKaur Advocate t0 Mr0Sharma DAG Haryana Z Mriari Pal Verma Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocatewith m MrArvind Seth Advocate MrKS Dadwal Advocate mW Z Permod Kohli Je tl With similarity of factsand common issueshavingbeeninvolvedin thesewrit petitionsthe same are beingdisposedofby this common order The petitioners in all these petitions are Millers engaged ln custom 4 millingof the paddypursuantto entered into with the HaryanaState Cooperative Supplyand MarketingFederation Limited hereinafter referredto as the HAFED Even thoughthere are separate impugnednotices lll all these petitionshowever the contents being Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 1 CWPNoe 1911of2010etc 5 common factsare beingnoticedfrom CWP No191 1 of2010 Stateof Haryanaissued rice levyorder called as Rice Procurement Levy Order 1985 0lereinaerreferredto as 1985 ordeflThis order hasbeenissuedunder Section30f the Essential Act 1955with theobjective of maintaining thesuppIy of rice and for securingltS distribution and availability at fair prices Clause 10of the aforesaid 1985order empowersthe Govemmentor the 1 Director Food and Supplies to directany rice miller to convert any stock or r paddyinto rice held by the govemment or its agency or the Food 0 0 ofIndia on suchtenns andconditionsas maybe by I theGovemment or the Director In terms ofthe aforesaidClauseofthe 1985 C I Orderthe Stateof Haryanadecidedto engage variousrice mills in the State Z ofHaryanafor Custom Millingof Rice known as CMR A detailed were formulatedin this regardon 192008 issuedbythe Director Food andSuppliesHaryanaUnder the 1985Order I L3 and the the miller is requiredto deliver the rice after Z custom milling to the FCI Allotment to the millers is to be madebythe 11 District Level CommitteeheadedbytheDeputyDirector and of W2 Z DistrictManagerof procurementagenciesincludingthe Food Corporation Om ofIndia It also provides not to makeany allotmentto a defaulterrice miller Clause5 6fJof the olicy 6AnnexureP49 providesfor execution of Clause 09dealswith the paymentof millingcharges 4 For the paddyseason 20082009 thepetitionernamelyMls ParkashRice ShivpuriRoad Karnal was entrustedwith 1439 MT tonns paddyfor millingA formal agreementenvisaged under Clause 5 6Oofthe policyalso came to be executedon 2692008ondition 15 6Oof the agreement m Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 41 40 1 CWPNoe 1911of2010 etce 6 for deliveryof the rice after millingas per quality laid down bythe HAFED directly to theFCI Condition 17of the deals with the mode and manner of deliVerYe The Said conditionis as underl 17The of rice shall be deemedto have been bytheMillerlSecondPartyaer the stocksare loadedinto wagons or deliveredlntO thegodowns as per directionsof the omcial of the C First Partyafter necessary and 0 0 of the quantityIIl accordancewith the 0 of the First Partyat the cost of the I MillerlSecondParty It will be the responsibility of the Z MillerlSecondPartyto supply A note weightcheck 2 andall otherrelevantdocumentsto the concerned memo r agency afterthedeliveryofrice for claiming from Food of India iling which Z he shall be liable to pay CCL rate of interest for the ao period All the expenditureincludinglabour 7 Z loadingunloading and any other etc incurred ln connectlon with thedelivery of rice within 8 Kms shall be borne by the MillerlSecond PartyIn case nce 1S delivered beyond8 Kms the expenditure incurred by the MillerlSecond Party on this account shall be regulatedas per instructions ofGovernment ofIndia 29 Even FCI hasissuedguidelines dated 17008 regardinginspection 1 Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 V 5 b SV 7 CWPNo 1911of2010 etc sampleanalysislll of the of paddyand ofrice stockduring Seasons200809 Perusalof this documentrevealsthatproper has been forensuring the qualityof the rice its supplyand storageetc The quality hasto be maintainedasper theguidelines by theGovernmentof Indiaetc It is admittedcase of theparties that thepetitioner deliveredthe milled rice to FCI uptothe monthsof 2009 It is alleged thatat the time of deliveryFCI Kamal carriedout detailedanalysisto C test the quality of the rice delivered by the 0 Cao The petitioner hasplaced on record vanous C5 reportslll respect of the suppliesmade by the petitionerThese are I markedas Annexure I7 with thewrit petitionThe acceptance Z reportsindicatethat the milled rice suppliedconforms to the prescribed as regardsthequalityofthe rice supplied r I In the next paddyseason 20092010 againthe partiesenteredinto co same kind of arrangement as in the previousSeason 200809 The Z petitioner was entrustedwith 4390MT of paddyfor milling for the season m 2009010After millingthe nce wasto be dellveredto FCI not later than m Z 312010 for which followingscheduleof deliverywas prescribed under theagreement executedbetweenthe partiesfor this season as well October and November 20091 200Iofthe allotted paddy December2009 25Io dO eeae January2010 25Idoe February 2010 15Io edo March 2010 15Io io 99 The milled rice was to be deliveredto the FCI directlyin accordance Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 1 tl CWP No 1911of2010 etce 8 withthe contractual in terms of the dated 1 102009 The claims to have milled 184MT of paddyfor the monthsof 2009andwhendelivery was sought to be madeto FCI it re6Jsedto take the It is statedthat when the petitioner made the reason for refusal of the FCI to take deliveryit enquines receivedletter dated 101009 0Annexure P8l issued by the Pawan GuptaDepot Manager FCI Kamal wherebythe was m that the rice stockedby it at D111 Bajidahad been Q declaredas Below Rejection Limit lereinaller referredto as BRLI It 0 0 was furthercommunicatedthat as a precondition thepetitioner is required I C5 toreplace therice at its own costs as per directionsof thehigherauthority I for accepting the paddyfor the year 2009 0 A similar Ietter dated Z 27112009 was received from the District ManagerHAFED Karnal P101askingthe petitioner to replacethe BRL stock of rice 0 within the as per directions of the FC The petitioner I receivedyet anotherletter dated4122009 from the Assistant Food and Z Supplies Officer Kamal on thesame lines advisingthe petitioner to replace m theBRL declaredrice for the year 200809 to facilitatethe deliveryof the 7 Z nce pertainingto the paddyseason 2009 lO The petitionermade a tl dated 21122009 objecting to the demand of the FCI HAFED and Food and Supplies with the pleathat the delivery ofrice for thepreviousyear 200809 was as per the agreementand quality 4 speciflcations and norms Petitioner insisted for takingdeliveryof the nce for the season 200910 The petitioner hasbeen served with the impugned notice dated 81 2010 4nnexure Pe11issued bythe Area Manageraskingit to replacethe substandardstocks with stock of applicablespeciflcationsfor Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 Il V 1 ear CWP No 1911of2010etce 9 season 200809within seven daysfailingwhich the reserves therightto disposeof substandardrice stock deliveredbythe at lts risk and costs without 61rthernotice and without prejudice to the legal includingbanningthe business dealingand to the State Government for This letter 0Annexure Pe11was followed by anothernoticedated 15 010 issuedby the HAFED 6Annexure P advising the to replaceBRL nce 1 P21 Both these letters are subjectmatter of Q challenge in the presentpetitionThe petitionersubmitteda detailedreply 0 0 dated251010 Annexure Pe131 to theFCI andHAFED I t5 Challenge to theseordersisprimarily on followinggroundse I iThe are not entitled to raise disputelll respectof the Z for the season 200809 at the time of deliveryof rice for the 04 season200910 as boththe transactionsare distinct and ariseout different agreements I iiIDeliverymade duringthe season 200809 was duly acceptedas Z to the prescribed and standardswithout anv CO objection and thusno dispute its qualityand could mv Z be raisedin the next seasonl 0 iioTestsconductedallegedly in respectof deliveryfor the year 200809 were at theback oftheetitioner and withouteven informing the petitioner OvlFreshinspectionhas been carriedout after a periodof lnore than six months of the deliverywhen the rice supplied to the FCI was stacked and ea lefl out to the vagariesof weather 1 9 There has been violation of principles ofnatural justice There are three sets of repliesfiled by the The replies Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 4 7 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 10 filed by the FCI and the HAFED do not disputethe facts statedby the Ravinder Malik District Food and SuppliesController Kamal hasstatedthatthe miller was to deliver67Io rice of the paddyduringthe e cropyear 200809 after millingto the FCI within the period upto3132009 This deliverywas madeas per the terms and conditions of the agreementand milling of the petitionerhad been refunded by District ManagerHAFED However no has 1 rejected the rice delivered bythepetitioner aftereightmonthsand refusedto 0 acceptthe rtherrice ofcropyear 200C10 vide letterdated101 12009 0 0 In the replyflled by noA and 56FCI9their actiotl 1S I 45 sought to be justified on the ground that rice suppliedby the petitioner duringthe season 200809 was found to be substandard 1 Below Z RejectionLimit against the laid down for the relevantyear It 1S further mentionedthat a super inspection was carried out by Shri Janak Q Raj AGM OQC FCI Zonal Offlce North Noida and the analysisrepons I C dated 23 02009 to 28102009 64nnexuresRIlA R5118 RIlCJ Z showsthat the stocks deliveredbythepetitioner were below the laid down Ol norms BRL and the petitioner was required to replacethe same for m Z which sufficient was granted to the petitionerIt is further Qu 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 with the offlcials ofthe CorporationIt is lrther mentionedthat officials of CorporationnamelyShri KCGarg Area ManagerSl0 Dubey AGM QC9 SlllGaba Managerand RajeshChaudharyTechnical Assistant were placedunder and chargeleetedSome ofthem have even been V Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 r0 1 Y 1 r erhe ll CWP No 1911of2010 etce relievedfrom serviceofthe F Accordingto noA and5 216 MT rice deliveredbythepetitionerduringtheperiodfrom 1222009 to 532009 was found to be Below Rejection Limit causingloss to the to the tune of RsA6A8 lacs It is mentionedthatthe was afforded an opportunityto replacethe substandardrice The were not onlyagainstthe but alsoagainst numberof othermillers It is 8irthet mentionedthat the offer of the Corporation was 1m by about 31 millers who replacedthe substandardnce Supplied duringthe season 200809 but the failed to do so7espondents 0 0 havealso pleadedthatthereis an arbitrationclause beingClauseN023 in I C5 the agreemententeredbetweenthepetitionerand respondent no6 which I inter alia provides for settlementof all disputesby referring to the sole Z arbitrationof the Director Food and Suppiies Director of the Agencyor any person appointedby them in this behalf The I havethus the ofthe writ petition t3 The petitionerhas filed replicationreiterating its stand in the writ Z petitionThe additional fact statedin the is that even as per rJ inspectionreportthe infraction in the speciScation is inequitable It is Wa Z furtherpleaded that the allegedsuperinspectiOllwas carried out after a QW periodof more than SlX months and without any notice to the petitioner or associating it with such inspection I have heard learnedcounsel for the partiesat Iengthand eWe gonethrough the record During the pendencyof this petition some interim orders were passedaskingtheFCI to acceptthe stocks of rice for the season 200t2010 andpay 50Ioofthe billingcharges Detailedinterimorder in thisregardwas Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 lP re 1 W CWPNo 1911of2010 etce 12 on April9 2010 This orderpassed in CWP Nol91 1 of 2010 was extendedto all thewrit petitions Issuesinvolved in this petitionare two foldse 6il supplyof substandardnce for the season 200809 iOSupply of custom millingof riceforthe season 200t2010 both the transactions were under distinct and separate executedbetweenthepartiesgoverning the custom inillingof paddy for conversionto rice in accordancewith the contractualstipulations andthe Schemeformulatedunderthe 1985Order It is common case ofthe 0 0 parties that all supplies were bythe FCl from thepetitioner for the I C5 season 200809 without any objectionin respectof quality mode and manner of deliveryetc as under the Z agreementsllot onlythatthe rice was acceptedeven paymentswere made 2 to the petitionerand their securitydepositreleased by the HAFED obviously with the concurrence of FCI Even FCl in its detailedcounter did not dispute the deliveryof rice and the releaseof payments and security Z without any objectionThe case projectedby the FCI 1S that super Ol was carried out by the ofYicials of the FCI wherein the nce 7 Z suppliedby the petitioner was found substandardie Below Rejection Limit BRLI This inspection was carriedout by the oftlcials of the FCI a8er six months ofthe flnal supplyby the petitionerlt is pertinent to note that the supplyofthe rice was to be lnade in Ove phasesbetweenOctober to 4a March At no stageduringthe periodof supplyspreading over six months anyobjection was raised regardingthe qualityspeci6cations of the nce suppliedlt was onlywhen the entire supplywas made and aRer release of payments and securityandafter six months the super inspection was said to Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 11 1 p4 W CWP No 1911of2010etce 13 be carried out No has been renderedby the FCI for not carryingout any inspecttonor analysisduringthe six monthsof supply periodor immediately on of supply To the contrarythe haveplaced on recordtheanalysis reportin respectofthe quality ofthe deliveryofrice madebythem Theseanalysis were also carriedout by the FCI Apartfrom above the test said to be conductedbv the FCI duringsuper inspectionwas carriedout at the back of the m It would have been more prudentto associate the C4 when duringsuper inspectionany deficiencywas noticed in the rice 0 0 bythepetitioner but theFCI chosenot to associatethepetitioner I C5 the suppliersor even inform them It has also come on record that the I custommilled rice was lyingin thedepotof the FCI The conditionunder Z which storagewas madehasnot beenbrought on record Admittedlyrice 1S a perishable item It needsto be keptunder conditionfor longer storage life If it is left to vagaries of weather it is open to perishNo such I 0 materialhasbeen brought on record or even pleadedin thereplyregarding Z the storageconditions of the rice suppliedby the petitionerduringthe Cll season200809 In any case the were not putto any notice or 7 Z provided an opportunity of beingheardregarding thequality Qm beforecarryingout the test or even at thetimethe test was conducted This has resulted into serious violation ofthe principles ofnatural justice Notice to thepetitioner was givenonlywith regardto of the alleged aee substandardriceiowever at the time of determination whether the rice lS substandard or not no notice was ever issued to the petitionerThus action of the respondents in refusingdeliveryof rice for the season 2009e2010is not justifiable under any Clrcumstances have referred to Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 e 4 PtS CWPNO 1911of2010 etCe 14 of the Honble Coun passedin the case of Tapan Kumar Sadhukhan vseFood of lndia and others199616 Court Cases 101 In this Honble Suprelne Court has the need for improving publichealth While dealingwith the provlslonsof Food of India Act 1964 it has beenobserved thatit is the obligation of the Stateor lts agency to raise nutritionallevel andimprovepublichealth It hasalso beenheld thatthe Stateshouldnot allow substandard food grainsto reach market for human without upgrading the same so as to makeit flt for human 0 0 While referringto this judgmentit has been pleadedon behalf of I CD that substandardrice cannot be utilizedbythe Statefor supply I underthe publicdistributionsystemas it is injurious to publichealth l fail Z to understandhow thisjildgmentis relevant111SO far as the interse dispute betweenthe petitioner and is concerned Stateand its agencvs obligation to providefood grainsflt for human to the needy I persons who are upon the Statesponsoredpublicdistribution Z system cannot be disputed However thequestion in the presentpetition lS m breach of mutual contractual obligationsbetween the partiesand vm Z thereof This judgment doesnot helpthe in any manner exceptto obligatethem to supplyonlysuch food grainsas are St for human consumptionbyupgradingthesubstandardfood grains halve alsopleadedagainstthe ofthe wnt p petition on tWo counts firstlythat the wnt petition involves disputed questionsof fact and thus remedyunder Anicle 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitionersSecondly there is an arbitrationClauseN023 in the contract agreement between the parties Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 e 1 r4 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 15 andtheonlyremedy availableto the lS to invokethe remedyby wayof arbitration It is true thattheHighCourt while exercising writ jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to entertain a writ involving seriousdisputed of fact However this lS not a ruleof Iaw but a rule of discretionwheretheHighCourt exercisesa self imposed restriction to avoid to upon disputed of fact in exerciseof writ jurisdiction In thepresentcase theredoesnot seem to be r any serious of fact so as to decline the pleaof the 0 0 in the writ petitionWhat is soughtto be projectedas disputed I 0 of fact is the supplymadeby the petitionerduringthe season I 20082009 have pleadedthat the rice suppliedwas Z substandardwhereas the have pleadedthe same to be to the quality The supplyof rice its C4 I quantityetc lS an admittedpositionamongstthe partiesThe haveplacedon recordanalysisconductedbythe Food Corporation of lndia Z certifyingthequality prescribed underthe agreementandthe CQ norms laid down bythe Govemmentof India This fact is not disputedIt 7 Z has however beenpleadedbythe thatwhen a super inspection tl was conducted alter six monthsof thesupplynce supplywas found to be substandard Such tests were not conducted ln the presence ofthe petitioner or with their association Under thesecircumstances it cannot be said that e1 thereare seriousdisputedquestions of fact The petitionersare disputing the analysisthe test conducted bythe respondents at their back whereasthe are disputingearlier analysisconductedby their own officials certifying the qualityspeciflcations So what is beingdisputed is the action Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 16 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etc oftheirown bythe This Court is not calleduponto decide aboutthequestion whetherthericesupplied bythepetitioner during theseason 2008009is substandardor not Court is onlyconcernedwith the breachof contractual obligationand the violation of the conditions laid downin the year 1985orderwhich is statutoryin ilature Thus the pleaof the not to interferein exerciseof writ jurisdiction deserves W The petitioners have relied upon a judgmentof the Honble 0 Court passed in ABL Internation Ltde And another vs Export 0 0 Credit Guarantee Corporationof India Ltd And others 200413 SCC I t5 553 whereinHonble Supreme Court has held that even where thereare I of fact andthereis no absolutebar for the Z writ petitionjurisdictionunder Article 226of theConstitutionof Indiacan r be exercisedHonble Court haseven goneto theextent of saying I that if factsrequireoral evidence can also be taken in exerciseof writ Where any break of contractual arises out of Z violation of principlesof naturaljustice or arbitrary actlOtl of Staterequires m judicialscrutiny writ jurisdiction can be exercised Relevant observations 7 Z are contained in paragraph8 of the aforesaid judgmentwhic are tl reproduced here under As couldbeseen 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 is maintainableto e enforcea contractualobligationof the Stateor its byan aggrieved party In our opinionthis question is no more res integra and is settledbv a largenumberofjudicialpronouncements ofthis Coun In K Guruswamy V The StateofMysoreand others 1195509 SCR 3051this Court heldl The next questionis whetherthe appellant can complainof this by way of a writ ln our opinionhe could havedone so In an ordinarycaseThe appellantisinterestedin these contracts and has a right under the laws of the State to receive the same Uma 2014.05.05 15: 25 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 r Jl 5 191 CWPNoe 1911of2010 etc 17 andbe giventhesame chanceas anybody else We would thereforein the ordinaiy course have giventhe the writ he seeks But owingto thetime which this matter hastaken to reach us a consequencefor which the is in no way to blame for he has done all he could to havean earlyhearinglthereisbarely a fonnightof thecontract lettto go A writwouldthereforebeineffectiveandas it is not our to issue writswe must dismiss this appeal andleavetheappellant contentwith an enunciationofthe Iaw It is clear from the above observationsof this Courtin the said case thougha writ was not issuedon thefacts of thatcase this Court hasheld that on a given 1 of factsif a Stateacts in an arbitrary manner even in C4 set amatterof contract an partycan the 0 Court by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution andthe court on factsofthe said 0 caseis to grantherelief 75 I C5 The next questionwhich has been vehementlystressedby the I 1S existence of arbitrationclause in the contract agreement Z betweenthe partiesRelevant extract of Clause 23 of the Arbitration C betweenthe partiesreads as underl I 23AIlthe disputesand differencearisingout of or in C0 Z anymanner touchingor conceming this agreement 00 whatsoever exceptas to any matter the decision of 7 whichis provided for in thecontractlshall be Z referredto the sole arbitrationof the Director Food and Cl Supplies Director of the Agencyor any personappointedby them in this behalfThere 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: 25 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 r 4 CWP No 1911of2010etce 18 of the in this regardis also requiredto be for following reasonsl For the session20092010there is no disputebetweenthe panies breachof any contractual FCI has simplyrefusedto accept the rice from the millers on the groundthat rice suppliedin the preVlOUSyear be replacedbeingsubstandardThis clearlyestablishesthat m there is