Civil Writ Petition No.3799 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 20 ,2011 Tajpur Rice & General Mills, Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. Ishtbir Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Kanwaljeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Different Rice Shellers have joined hands to file these common Civil Writ Petition Nos.3799 of 2009 (Tajpur Rice & General Mills, Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana and others Vs. Union of India and others), 17074 of 2008 (M/s Durga Rice and General Mills, Distt. Gurdaspur and others Vs. Union of India and others) and 15667 of 2009 (Aggarwal Overseas, Kurali, District Mohali and others Vs. Union of India and others), to make an Civil Writ Petition No.3799 of 2009 : 2 : identical prayer for quashing letter dated 20.12.2006 and for issue of mandamus to refund some deduction made from the payment of the petitioners pursuant to the above noted letter. The petitioners who are doing business of rice shelling have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the letter issued by the Government imposing a value cut on the rice to be supplied to Union of India under relaxed specification. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that they are only doing the work of paddy shelling as supplied by the respondent agencies on charges of `15/- per quintal paid to them. The paddy belongs to the Food Corporation of India or the State agencies and accordingly the petitioners could not be put to share the value cut on the quality of rice so produced and supplied. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners was asked to make submission as to how writ petitions would be maintainable for recovery of some amount, even if it has been wrongly deducted. It is to be seen whether the petitioners could be held liable for quality of rice, which is given to them as custom milled rice and may not be a levy rice and upon that may depend whether the petitioners could be held liable for any cut on the basis of quality. The issue would have to be determined on the basis of some material, for which it would not be appropriate for the writ Court to determine. If the petitioners have any grievance in regard to any deduction wrongly made and are asking for refund thereof, they would have an efficacious alternative remedy of either seeking arbitration as being a clause in the agreement or any other remedy that may be available to them in this Civil Writ Petition No.3799 of 2009 : 3 : regard. It would certainly not appropriate for the writ Court to determine the liability aspect and then to direct refund. It is basically a recovery of amount, which is stated to have been wrongly deducted that is being sought through the writ petition. The petitioners are, thus, relegated to have their alternative remedy available to them. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. January 20 ,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE