279 64 4e r CWP No 1911of2010etc 1 1 IN THE HIGHCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 7 DATE OF DECISION 4e42011 lleCWP Noel9ll of2010 Mls Parkash Rice Mill eeePetitioner Versus e StateofHaryanaand others r Respondents 0 0 06CWP N03554 of2010 Mls Hanuman Rice Mill 82Another C I eeePetitioners Versus Z The Stateof Haryanaand others Respondents C4 I 1CWP N05281 of2010 L0 Z Mls Inder SinghAjit Singh Petitioner OO Versus Swo Stateof Haryanallndothers Z Qm Respondents WP N05282 of2010 Mls GanpatiRice Overseas me eeePetitioner Versus State of Haryanaand others Respondents Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 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 0 4 t CWP Noa 1911of2010etca 2 Mls AnnapurnaOverseas eeePetitioner Versus Stateof Haryanaand others Respondents 6CWP N05279of 2010 MlsJhandu Mal Tara Chand ePetitioner Versus 1 C StateofHaryanaand Others 0 0 I of2010 0 Mls HaryanaRice Lande I eeePetitioner Z Versus Stateof Haryanaand others C4 I CJ WP N0S287of2010 Z Mls Shivo Shiva TradingCompany 00 eeePetitioner m7 Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others ll Noe5284of2010 Mls Siri Ganesh Rice and General Mill 4V0Wee Petitioner Versus Stateof Haryanaand others Respondents of2010 Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 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 L CWP Noe 1911of2010etce 3 Mls Jai DurgaRice and General Mill eeePetitioner Versus The StateofHaryanaand others Respondents Mls Hindustan Rice Mills eeaPetitioner Versus The StateofHaryanaand others 0 0 I JZCWPNoe4917of2010 C3 Mls Krishna Rice S General Mills I eeePetitioner Z Versus StateofHaryanaand others C I t0 Z Mls Raj ShreeRice Mills m 0eePetitioner 1 7 Versus Z Stateof Haryanaand others 114CWP NoS286 of2010 Mls Mahavir Rice General Mills C eaPetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 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 l 9 CWP Noe 1911of2010etce 4 Mls Hanuman Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus Stateof Haryanaand otllers Respondents 6CWP NoA937 of2010 Mls A One Rice Unit eeePetitioner Versus 1 Stateof Haryanaand others 0 0 Respondents I C5 CORAM I Z HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI e PRESENT MrTS Dhindsa Advocate MtOP Goyalo SrAdvocate with I MsimplejeetKaur Advocate r MrROShanna DAG Haryana Z Mrari Pal Verma Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocatewith QO MrArvind S2th Advocate MrS Dadwal Advocate 7 Z Permod KohliJe With similarity of factsand common issues havingbeeninvolved lll thesewrit petitionsthe same are beingdisposedofby this common order The petitioners in 811these petitions are Millers engaged in custom millingof the paddypuruant to entered into with the HaryanaState Cooperative Supplyand MarketingFederation imitcd hereinatler referred to as the HAFED1 Even thoughthere are separate impugnednotices in all these petitionshowever the contents being Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 283 C CWPNoe 1911of2010etce 5 common factsare beingnoticedfrom CWP Nol91 l of2010 State of Haryanaissued nce levyorder called as Haryana Rice Procurement0evyl Order 1985 hereinafterrefened to as 1985order1This order has beenissuedunderSection30f the Essential CommoditiesAct 1955with theobjective thesupplyof rice and for securingits eiluitable distributionand availability at fair prices Clause 10 of the aforesaid 1985order empowersthe Governmentor tllc 1 DirectorFoodand to directany ricemillerto conveit any stock Cl r paddyinto nce held by the governmentor its agency or the Food 0 0 ofIndia on suchterms andconditionsas maybe prescribed by I t5 theGovemmentor theDirector In terms ofthe aforesaidClauscofthe 1985 I Order the StateofHaryanadecidedto engagevariousrice mills in the State Z ofHaryana for Custom Millingof Ricc commonlyknown as CMR A 2 detailed were formulatedin this regardOll 1982008 rL issuedbythe DirectorFood and SuppliesHaryanaUnderthe 1985Order C and the the miller is required to deliver the rice after Z custom millingto the FCI Allotment to the millers is to be madebv the m District Level CommitteeheadedbytheDeputyDirector and of vmo Z District Managerof procurementagenciesinciuding the Food Corporatioll n ofIndia It alsoprovides not to makeany allotmentto a defaulterrice miller Clause 5 O of the olicy 6AnnexureP41 providesfor execution of whereasClause 09deals with the paymentof millingcharges m For the paddyseason 20082009 thepetitionernamelyMls Parkash Rice ShivpuriRoad Kamal was entrusted with 1439MT tonns paddyfor millingA formal agreementenvisaged under Clause S oo ofthe policyalso came to be executed on 2692008 Condition 15 0il of the agrecnlent Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 284 l 6 CWP Noe 1911of2010etc 6 for deliveryof the rice after millingas per quality laid down bythe HAFED directly to the FCI Condition17of theagreement deals with the mode and manner of deliveryThe said conditionis as underl 17The of rice shall be deemedto have been bytheMillerlSecond Partyafterthe stocksare loadedinto wagonsor deliveredintothegodowns as per 1 directionsof the ofOcial of the FirstParty aller necessary and 0 0 of the quantityIn accordancewith the C5 of the First Partyat thecost of the I MillerlSecOnd Party It will be the of the Z MillerlSeoondPartyto supplyA note weightcheck 2 andall otherrelevantdocumentsto the concerned memo ailer thedeliveryofrice for claimtng I CJ 00m Food of India failingwhich Z he shall be Iiableto pay CCL rate of interestfor tlle m period All the expenditureincludinglabour 7 Z unloading and any other etc incurredin connectionwith thedelivery of ice within 8 Krm shall be borne b the MillerlSecond Party ln case rice 1S deliveredbeyond8 Kms the expenditure incurred by the MillerlSecond 1e Party Oll this account shall be regulatedas per instructionsofGoverninent of India 19 EvenFCI has issuedguidelines dated 178008 regardinginspection Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 285 1 9 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 7 sampleanalysis 111 of the procurementof paddyand of rice stockduringKharif Marketing Seasons200809 Perusalof this documentrevealsthat proper has been for ensuring the qualityof the rice itssupplyand storageetc The quality hasto be lnaintainedas per the bythe Governlnentof India etc It is admittedcase of the parties that the deliveredthe milled rice to FCI upto themonths 2009 It is alleged 1 thatat the time of deliveryFCI Kamal carried out detailedanalysis to test the quality of the rice delivered by tlle 0 Ca3 The petitioner hasplaced on rccordvarious I C5 reportsIll respect of the supplies made by the These are I collectively markedas AnnexureF7 with the writ petitionThc acceptance Z reportsindicatethat the milled rice supplied conforms to the 2 as regardsthequalityofthe ricesupplied C4 I In the next paddyseason 200920 10 againthepartiesenteredinto same kind of arrangement as lll the previousSeason 2008e09 Thc Z was entrustedwith 4390MT of paddyfor millingfor the season C 200910 After inillingthe rice was to be dcliveredto FCI not Iaterthan Z 3132010 for which foliowingscheduleof deliverywas under Qm theagreement executedbetweenthepartiesfor this season as well Octoberand November 2009 20Ioofthe allottedpaddy December2009 25IdO eO January 2010 25Ido February 2010 15Io edoe March 2010 15Ido 99 The milled rice was to be deliveredto the FCI directlyin accordancc Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 286 4 CWP Noe 1911of2010etce 8 with the contractual ln terms of the agreementdated1 102009 The claimsto have milled 184 MT of paddyfor the monthsof OctoberlNovember2009 andwhendelivery was sought to be madeto FCI it refusedto take the deliverylt is statedthat when the made regarding the reason for refusal of the FCI to take deliveiytt received letter dated 10 1 009 1nnexure PI issued by the Pawan Gupta DepotManagerFCI Karnal wherebythc was 1 communicatedthat the rice stockedby it at DBN Bajidahad been r declaredas Below Rejection Limit lereinaRerrefened to as BRl1 lt 0 0 was 61rthercommunicted that as a precondition the is required C5 to replace therice atits own costsas per directionsofthe higherauthont I for accepting the paddyfor the year 200940 A similar Ictter dated Z 272009 was received from the District ManagerHAFEIO Kamal 2 6Annexure Pe10 askingthe to replacethe BRL stock of rice within the as per directions of tlie FCI lhe petitioner receivedyet anotherletter dated 4 122009 from the Assistant Food and Z Supplies Officer Karnalon thesame lines advising thepetitioner to replace m the BRL declaredrice fqrthe year 2008m09to facilitatethe deliverv of the wn3 Z nce pertainingto the paddyseason 200910 The petltionertnade a dated 2 1 122009 objecting to the demand of the FCl HAFED and Food and Supplies with the pleathat the delivery of rice for thepreviousyear 200809 wasas perthe agreementand quality eeW specifications and nonns Petitionerinsisted for takingdelivelyof the rice for the season 200910 The petitioner has been served with the impugned notice dated 812010 64nnexureP11 issuedby the Area Manageraskingit to replacethe substandard ocks with stock of applicable for Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 287 e CWP No 1911of2010etce 9 season 200809 within seven daysfailingwhich the reserves therightto dispose of substandardrice stockdeliveredbythepetitionei at its riskand costs without furthernoticeand without prejudice to the Iegal includingbanningthe business dealing and to the State Government for This letter Annexure P was followedby anothernoticedated 151 2010 issuedby the HAFED 64nnexure P21 advisingthe petitioner to replaceBRL nce 1 Pw21Both these letters are subjectmattcr of r challenge in the preSentpetitionThe submitteda detailedreply 0 0 dated2512010 6Anllexure P to the FCI andHAFED I C9 Challenge to theseordersis primarily on followinggroundsm I iIThe are not entitled to raise disputeln respectof the Z for the s6ason 200809 at the time of delivery of rice for the 4v season200910 as both thetransactionsare distinct and arlse olltIdifferent rL agreements I iilDelivery made duringthe season 200849 was duly acceptedas Z to the speciflcations and standardswithout any m objection andthusno disputeregarding its qualityand could y7 Z be raisedin thenext season Qm iiiITestsconductedallegedlyin respectof deliveryfor the year 2008e09 wereat thebackofthepetitioner andwithouteven informing tlle petitioner ovIFreshinspectionhas been carriedout after a periodof more than six months of the deliverywhen the rice supplied to the FCI was stacked and er left out to the vagariesof weather There has been violation of principles ofnatural Oustice There are thre sets of repliesOled by the The replies Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 288 1 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 10 filed by the FCI tind the HAFED do not disputethe facts statedbythe RavinderMalik District Food and Supplies Controller Karnal has statedthat the miller was to deliver67Io rice of the paddyduringthe 1e cropyear 200809 altermillingto the FCI within the period upto3132009 This deliverywas made as per the terms andconditionsof the agreementand milling of the petitioner had been refunded by District ManagerHAFED However no Ilas m relected the rice dellveredbythe aftereightmonthsand reliised to r accept the lrther rie ofcropyear 200910 vide letterdated 101 12009 0 0 Kn the reply61edby noA and 5 FCI I their actlon iS I 0 sought to be justified on the ground that rice suppliedby the I1 duringthe season 200809 was found to be substandardie Il3elow Z Reection Limit aginstthe Iaiddown for thc rclevant 5ir It 1S further mentionedthat a super was carried out bv Shri Janak Raj AGM QC FCI Zonal Office North Noida and the analysis rcpotts I dated 23 02009 to 28 02009 Innexures Re511A Re511B R511C1 Z shows thatthe stocks deliveredbythepetitioner were below the laid down CO norms BRL andthe petitionerwas required to replacethe same for ewo Z which sufflcient was granted to the petitionerlt is fiirther Ll allegedthat merelybecause stocks were acceptedby the IC l petitioner cannot be absolved Of its liability lt IS stated that in fact petitioner succeeded in deliverihg the Below RejectionLimit stocks in cOIllllVllIlCe with the officials ofthe Corporationlt is furthermentionedthat ofOcials 01 CorporationnamelyShri KCGarg Area ManagerSP Dubey AGM QC9 SlllGaba Managerand RajeshChaudharyTechnicai Assistant werc placed under and chargelcetedSomeof them have even been Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 289 1e CWP Noe 1911of2010etce 11 relievedOom serviceofthe FCl According to noA and5 216 MT rice deliveredbythe duringtheperiodfrom I 22009 to 53 2009 was found to be Below Rejection Limit causingloss to the to thetune ofRsA6A8 lacs It is mentionedthatthe was afforded an to replacethe substandardrice The were not onlyagainst the but alsoagainst numberof othermillers It iS6Jrthermentionedthatthe offer of theCorporation was 1 acceptedby about 31 millers who replaced the substandardrlce supplied 0 duringthe season 200809 but the failed to do SO 0 0 havealso pleaded that therelS an arbitrationclausebeingClauseN023 111 0 the agreemententeredbetweenthe and respondent no6 which I tnter alia provides for settlementof all disputesbyreferring to the sole Z arbitrationof the Director Food and Supplies Director 2 C of the Agencyor any person by them in this behalf Thc I havethus the ofthe writ petition The petitioner has filed its stand in lhe writ Z petitionThe additionalfact statedin the replicationis that even as per 0 inspectionreportt4einfraction in the is It is 7 Z 81rtherpleaded that the allegedsuper inspectiOllwas carried out alter a periodof more thanSlX monthsand withoutany notice to thepetitioner or associating it with 8uchinspection 1 have heardlearned counsel for the partiesat lengthand carcfully 4enIlv gonethrough the record Duringthe pendencyof this petitionsome interim orders were passedaskingthe FCI to acceptthe stocks ofrice for the season 20092010 andpay 50Ioofthe billingchargesDetailedinterimorderin thisregard was Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 290 CWPNo 1911of2010etc 12 on April9 2010 This orderpassed in CWP Nol91 1 of 2010 was extendedto all thewrit petitions Issues involved ln this petitionare two foldslil supplyof rice for the season 20089 of custom millitlgof rice for the season 20092010 both thetransactionswere under distinct and separate executedbetweentheparties the custom mllliilgof 1 paddy for conversionto ricein accordancewith the contractual 0 andthe Schemeformulatedunderthe 1985Order It is common case of the 0 0 parties thatall supplies were bytheFCI from the for the I C5 season 200849without any objection in respectof qualityspecication I mode and manner of deliveryetc as under the Z Not onlythat therice was even payments were made to the petitioner and their securitydeposltrelcased by the IiAI IO 0 with the concurrence ofFCI Even lCl in its detailedcounter did I not dispute the deliveryof rice and the releaseof paymentsand security Z without any objectionThe case by the FCl 1S that super CO inspectionwas carried out by the officials of the FCI wherein the ricc 7 Z suppliedby the was found substandard1e Below Rejection ll Limit BRLI This inspection was carriedout by the officials of the FCI af1ersix months of the final supplybythe petitioncrlt is pertinent to note thatthesupplyofthe rice was to be made in flve phasesbetweenOctober to 1a March At no stageduringthetperiodof supplyspreading over six months anyobjectionwas raised regardingthe qualityspecifications of the rice suppliedIt was onlywhen the entire supplywas made and aRer release of andsecurityandaftersix monthsthe super inspection was said to Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 291 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 13 be carried out No has bccn renderedby the lCl for not carryingout any inspection or analysisduringthe SlX monthsOf period or on of supply To the contrarythe haveplaced on recordtheanalysis reportin respectofthe quality ofthe deliveryofrice madebythem Theseanalysis were also carriedout bytheFCI Apartfrom above the test said to be conductedby the FCl duringsuper was carried out at the back of the It would have been more prudentto assocl atc the petitioner r when duringsuper inspectionany deflciencywas noticed in the rice 0 0 supplied bythepetitioner butthe FCI chosenot to associate thc petitioner I C5 the suprliersor even inform them It has also come on record that the I custom milled rice was lyingin thedepotof the FCI The conditionunder Z which storagewas madehasnot beenbrought on record rice lS a perishable item It needsto be keptunderprescribed conditionfor longer 0 storage life If it is left Iovagaries of weather il is opento perishNo such I materialhas beenbrought on recordor evcn pleaded in thereply Z the storageconditions of the rice suppliedby the petitionerduringthc m season200809 In any case the petitioners were notputto any notice Or a Z provided an opportunity of beingheard the qualityspecication Ll beforecarrying out thet6stor even at the timethe test was conducted This hasresultedinto seriousiolation oftheprinciplesofnaturaljustice Notice to thepetitioner was givenonlywith regardto of the alleged aedO substandardrice However at the time of determination whether the rice tS substandardor not no notice was ever issued to the petitionerThus actlon of the in refusingdeliveryof rice for the season 200920 10 is not justiflableunder any Circumstances have referred to Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 292 e 14 CWPNoe 1911of2010 etc of the Honble SupremeCourt passedin the case of Tapan Kumar SadhukhanvseFood of lndia and others 199616 Court Cases 101 In this Honble Supreme CouMhas the need for publichealth Whiie dealingwith thc of Food of India Act 1964 it has been observed thatit is the obligation of the StateOr its aenCY tO raise nutritionallel el and improve health Itas also beenheld thatthe Stateshouldnot allowsubstandardfood grins to reach marketfor human consumption without the sam6so as to makeit fit for humanconsumption 0 0 While referringto this judgmen it has been pleaded on behalf 0 that substandard rice cannot be utilized bythe Statefor supply 0 I underthe distributiqn systemas it is injurious to publichealth I fail Z to understand how this is relevantin so far as the interesedispute thepetitioner and is concerned Stateand its agencvs C obligation to foodgrainstlt for human consumption to theneedy I who are upon the Statc publicdislribution Z systemcannot be However thequestion in the presentpctitionIS oo breach of mutual contractual between the partiesand 7 Z thereof Thisjudgment does not helpthe in any m to obligatethem to supplyonlysuch food grainsas are Ot manner forhuman consumption byupgrading the substandardfood grains have also pleadedagainstthe inaintainabililyof lhe writ 4m petitionon two cour firstlythat the writ petitioninvolves disputed of fact and thus remedyunder Article 226 of the of India is not available to the petitionersSecondly there lS Constitution anarbitrationClauseNo3 in thecontract agreementbetween the pat1ies Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 293 en CWPNoe 1911of2010etc 15 and theonlyremedy avail8bleto the lS to invokethe remedyby wayof arbitration Itis true thattheHighCourt while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitutionshouldbe reluctant to enteitain a writ involving serious of fact However this is not a rule of law but a rule ot1discretionwheretheHighCourt exercisesa self restrictionto avoid to upon disputed of fact inexercise In thepresent case theredoesnot seem to bc 0 any senous of fact so as to declinethe pleaof the 0 0 in the writ pefitionWhat is soughtto be as disputed C5 of fact is the supplymadeby the duringthe season I 2008200 have pleadedthat the rice suppliedwas Z whereas the have the samc to be to the quality The supplyof rice ItS r quantityetc is an admittedpositionamongsthe partiesThe petitioners I r haveplaced on record4nalysisconductedbytheFood of lndia Z thequality ecifications underthe agreementandthe OO normslaid down bythe Govemmentof India This fact is not disputedIt 17 Z has however been pleaded bythe thatwhen a super inspection tl was conductedafter Six monthsof thc supplynce supply was found to bc substandardSuch tes were not conductedin the presenceof the petitioner or with their association Under these circumstances it cannot be said that e there are serious questions of fact The petitioners are disputing theanalysisthe test conducted by the respondents at their back whereas the are disputing earlleranalysisconducted by their own ofllcials certifying thequality speciflcations So what is beingdisputed is the action Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 294 CWP Noe 1911of2010etc 16 oftheirown bythe ThisCourt is not calleduponto decide aboutthequestion whethertherice suppliedbythe during the season 200809 is substandardor not Court is onlyconcemedwith the breachof contractual obligation and the violation of the conditions laid downin the year 1985order which is statutoryln nature Thus the pleaof the not to interferein exerciseof writ jurisdiction deserves 1 rejectionThe have relied upon a judgmentof the Honble tr Court in ABL Internation Ltde And another vs Export 0 0 Credit Guarantee Cdrporationof India Ltd And others 3 SCC I 0 553 wherein Hone Courthas heldthat even wherethereare I disputed questions of fact and there is no absolutebar for the Z writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof Indiacan C be exercisedHonble Court haseven gone to theextent of saying I that if factsrequire al evidencecan also be taken in exerciseof writ Where tinybreak of contractual arises oul of Z violation of principlesof naturaljustlceor arbitrary actlon of Staterequires oo judicialscrutiny wrltjurisdiction can be exercised Relevantobservations emo Z are contained in 8 of the aforesaid which arc tl here under As could beseen fromthearguments addressedin this appeal and asalsofromthedivergent viewsofthe two couns belowone ofthe questions that falls for our considerationis whethera writ petition under Article 226 of theConstitutionof India is maintainableto enfrce a contractualobligationof the Stateor its 6eee byan aggrieved party In our opinionthisquestionis no more res integra and is settled bv a largenumberofjudicialpronouncements ofthis Coun In KN Guruswamy Vs The Stateof Mysoreand others f 1955 l I SCR 3051this Court heldl The next qucstionis whetherthe appellant can complainofthis byWay of a wnt In our opinionhe could have done so in an ordlnary case The appelIant is interestedin these contracts and hasl a right under the Iaws of the State to receive the same Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 295 7 CWP Noe 1911of2010etce 17 treatment and begiventhesame chanceas anybody else We would thereforein the ordinarycourse have giventhe appellant the writ he seeks But owingto the time whichthls matter hastaken to reach us 6aconsequencefor which thc appeltant is in no wayto blame for he has done all he could to havean earlyhearinglthereisbarely a fonnight of thecontract letl to go A writwouldthereforebeineffectiveandas it is not our practice to issue writs we must dismiss this appeal andleavetheappellant contentwith an enunciationofthe law It is clear from the above observationsof this Courtin the said case thougha writ was not issued011 the factsof that case this Coun hasheld that on a given 1 r set of factsif a Stateacts in an arbitrary manner even lll a matter of contract an partycan the 0 court by way of writ under Article 226 of thc 0 Constitutionandthe court on factsof thesaid caseis to grantherelief 59 I t5 The next questionwhich has been stressedb thc is existence of arbitrationclause in the contract agreement Z between the partiesRelevant extract of Clause 23 of the Arbitration Agreement betweenthepaitiesreadsas under I 23Allthe disputes and differencearisingout oforin 0 Z any manner touchingor this agreement a0 whatsoever6except as to any matter the decision of 7 which is provided for in the contractlshall be Z referredto the sole arbitrationof the IOirectorFood and tl Supplies Director of the AgencyOr anypersonappointed by them in this behalO There will be no objection to any such that the person e appointed is or was an employee of Food and Supplies Depanment and he had expressed views on all or any ofthe matter in dispute or difference The award of such arbitration shall be Onal and binding on both the partiesto this contrac Uma 2014.05.03 12: 59 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 296 CWP No 1911of2010etce 18 Contentionof the in this regardis also to be for following reasonsl For thesession20092010 thereis no disputebetweenthe parties breachof any contractual FCI hasslmplyrefusedto the rice from the millers on the groundthat rice in the year be replacedbeingsubstandardThis clearlyestablishesthat there is no as regards the of under the C for the season 20092010 Such a pleais extraneous tcl the 0 0 arisingout of 2009e2010 agreementThe petitioncrs I C5 are of the action of the which doesnot ariseout of I the for the season 20092010 The actionofthe Z Statecontrolledagencycan be called in question byinvoking A under Article 226 of the Constitution of