COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT W.P.Ne. 3S15/200S •<?• CORAM: Hon'bSe Shri S.R.Nayak, ChiefJustice & Hon'bte Shri D.R.Deshmukh, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS: Maharaja Vikramaditya Transport Company, Through Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Hanuman Yadav, aged a&out 32 ysars, R/'o Dhamdha Naka, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) \fversus 1. The ChhatSisgarh StaSe Civif Supplies Corporation Limited, Through- the Managing Director, Head offtee, Bal Ashram Pan'sar, Near District Court Square (Kuchehary Chowk), Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Manager, The ChhatSlsgarh Siate Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Swaroop Taliges Road, Behind Nehru Sohooi, Durg (C.G.) Shrl, M.P.S. Bhatla & Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, tearned counse! for the Pstitioner. Shri Vivek Ranjan Tw/art, learned counse! for the Respondents. n (Passed on 14.08.2006) Ths following orai order of the Court was passes The petitloner is contractor. He was awarded a contract So carry .out 30% of the work of transportlng food-grains and essentia! commodities under the Pubiic Distribution Scheme (P.D.S^). The petitioner was appointed by the respondent Corporation by resorting to the arrangement clause 1.7 of Notice Inviting Tender. When She matter stood thus, the I* Managing Dlrector of the Chhattisgarh SSate Civil Suppfies Corporation LlmiSed, the firsf respondent, by i$s order dated 11.7.2006 terminated the contract. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is fited. -%. 2. Various grounds are urged in this writ petition and the same were and highSighted by the leamed counssl appearing for the petitioner in the course of arguments. Opposing the writ petition, She Corporatlon has fi!ed a detaited return. !n She return, it is stated that a meeting of a!! She District Managers were heid in the Office of the first respondent on 5.7.2006 and if was unanimousty decsded that availing of the second fransporter should be resorted to only if first fransporter Tailed to perfomi She transporfration work. In the premise of that decteion, the second respondent has cancet!ed the transportation work awarded to th® petitloner. 3. Contentions such as that the respondents have no lega! authority to termlnate the contract; that there was absoluteiy no iustification to terminate She contract; that the action of the respondents in canceliing the contract is arbitrary, unreasonabte and violative of Artlcle 14 of the ConstiSution of tndia, were urged before us in support ofthe writ petition by the !earned counsel for ths petitioner. There is no need for us to undertake ad|udication of those potnts. We say this, because, if ths confract work awarded to the petitloner in breach of the terms of the is terminated to the preiudice of the petitioner-contractor and on acC-ount of such order, he has suffered any damage, it is open for Shs p.etttloner So work out his remedies before the jurisdictiona! Civil Court or Arbitral Forum. But, we are quite clear in our mind that under no circumstance, mandamus cou'd go to" the Corporatton to continue the sen/ices of the petitioner as contractor the fact tha? as per the Corporation, the're is no need for the second>'contactor. Issuance of such a directlon woirid not fall withln the iegitimate domain of the p-ower of review under Arttele 226 of the ConsSitution of 'ndia. We have one more •3 weighty reason not to entertain this writ petition and undertake adiudication of the lis brougM before the Court on merit. It is because She agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause. Clause 14.1 of the Contract provides arbitration in case of any dispute arising out of the Contract behveen the parties. Therefore, the petitioner has to wofk out remedies, as provided underClause 14.2 before the ArbiSral Forum. 4. tn the circumstance, we dfemiss the writ petition. We, however, make it very dear that we shouid not be understood So have expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and ai! contentions raised by the parties in their respective ple-adings are teft open to be agitated before ths ArbiSra! Forum or the Civi! Court, as the casejnavbe. No costs. lllt Sd/- Chief Justice Anjsni Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge l*