t 279 1 ee CWPNoe 1911of2010 etce INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION 4A1011 10CWP No1911 of2010 Mls Parkash Rice Mill eeePetitioncr Versus StateofHaryanaand others 1 C Respondents 0 C40 WP N003554of2010 I Mls Hanuman Rice Mill 8 Another C0 eeePetitioners I Versus Z The State ofHaryanaand others tr WP Noe5281of2010 r Mls Inder SinghAjit Singh Z eePetition er m Versus 7 StateofHaryanaand others Z ll 1Respondents teCWP N05282 of2010 Mls GanpatiRice Overseas 4eee eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryanaand others Respondents 1 1 4 e 1 ItL e6 1 Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 bs l1 2 CWPNo 1911of2010 etce Mls AnnapurnaOverseas eeePetitioner Versus Stateof Haryanaand others CWP N05279 of2010 Mls Jhandu Mal Tara Chand eeePetitioner Versus 1 Cl StateofHarvana and others 0 0 I of2010 C5 Mls HaryanaRice Land I eeePetitioner Z Versus Stateof Haryanaand others C4 Z WP Noe5287of2010 Mls Shiva Shiva TradingCompany oo eeePetitioner e a7 Versus Z Stateof Haryanaand others Qm Mls Siri Ganesh Rice and General Mill Ieee eePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others Respondents of2010 J 1 r Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 1 CV CWP No 1911of2010etc 3 l Mls Jai DurgaRice and General Mill eeePetitioner Versus The StateofHaryanaand others Respondents Mls Hindustan Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus 1 0 The StateofHaryanaand others 0 O I JZCWP N004917of2010 0 Mls Krishna Rice 8i General Mills I eeePetitioner Z Versus StateofHaryanaand others r I Z Mls Raj ShreeRice Mills QO eePetitioner em Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others 1140CWPNoe5286of 2010 Mls Mahavir Rice General Miils C OeePetitioner Versus State of Haryanaand others Respondents Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 C CWP No 1911of2010etce 4 Mls Hanuman Rice Mills 0Petitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others CWP No4937 of2010 Mls A One Rice Unit eeePetitioner Versus e r StateofHaryanaand others 0 U I C5 CORAM I Z HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI e r PRESENT2 MrTS Dhindsa Advocate MrOP GoyalSrAdvocatewith I Kaur Advocate MrROSharma DAG Haryana Z MrWIariPal Venna Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocatewith 00 MrArvind Seth Advocate MrlCS Dadwal Advocate 3 Z Permod Kohli J With similarityof facts nd common issues havingbeeninvolved in thesewrit petitionsthe same are beingdisposedofby this common order The petitioners in all thesepetitionsare Millers engagedin custom 4 millingof the paddypursuantto entered ito with the HaryanaState CooperativeSupplyand MarketingFederation Limited hereinafter referred to as the HAFED1 Even thoughthere are separate impugnednotices 111 all these petitionshowever the contents being 1 Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 C1 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 5 commonfactsare beingnoticed om CWP No91 l of2010 Stateof Haryanaissued rice procurementlevyorder called as Haryana Rice Procurement y9 Order 1985 hereinafterreferredto as 1985 ordefl This order has beenissuedunder Section30f the Essential CommoditiesAct 1955 with theobjective thesupplyofrice and for securlng its equitabledistribution ld availabilityat fair prices Clause 10 of the aforesaid 1985order empowers the Govemmentot the 1 Director Food andSupplies to directany rice miller to convert any stock or 0 paddyinto rice held by the govemmentor its agency or the Food 0 1 0 ofIndia on suchterms andconditionsas may be by I 0 the Govemmentor the DirectorIn terms ofthe aforesaidClauseofthe 1985 I Order the StateofHaryanadecidedto engagevariousrice mills in the State Z of Haryanafor Custom Millingof Rice commonlyknown as CMR A detailed were formulated in this regardon 19 2008 r I issuedbythe Director Food andSuppliesHaryanaUnder the 1985Order C3 and the the miller is requiredto deliver the rice after Z custommillingto the FCI Allotment to the millers 1Sto be madeby the co District Level Committeeheadedby theDeputyDirector and comprising of 7 Z District Manager of procurementagenciesincluding the Food Corporation m ofIndia It alsoprovides not to makeany allotmento a defaulterrice miller Clause 5 O of the olicy 6AnnexureP41 providesfor execution of agreementwhereasClause 01dealswith the paymentof millingcharges 4 For the paddyseason 20082009 the petitionernamelyMls ParkashRice ShivpuriRoad Karnal was entrusted with 1439 MT tonns paddyfor milling A formal agreementenvisaged under Clause 56Oofthe policyalso came to be executed Oll 2682008 Condition 15 6Oof the agreement Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 9 e 4 CWPNoe 1911of2010etce 6 for deliveryof the rice after millingas per quality laid downby the ED directlyto the FCI Condition 17of theagreementdeals with the mode and manner of deliveryThe said conditionis as underl 17The deliveryof rice shallbe deemedto have been bytheMillerlSecond Partya8er the stocksare loaded into wagons or deliveredinto thegodowns as per 1 directionsof the ofOcial of the Lr First Partyafter necessary and 0 C0 approvalof the quantityin accordance with the I C3 prescribed procedUre of the First Partyat the cost of the I MillerlSecond PartyIt will be the responsibility of the Z Mil IerlSecondPartyto supIolyA note weightcheck memoand all otherrelevantdocumentsto the concerned C I agency aRerthedelivery ofrice for claiming paymentfrom Food Corporation of India failingwhich Z he shall be liable to pay CCL rate of interestfor the 00 delayedperiod All the expenditureincludingIabour S7 Z loading unloading and any other r expenditure etc incurredin connectlotl with the delivery of ice within 8 Kms shall be borne by the MillerlSecond Party ln case nce 1S deliveredbeyond8 Kms the expenditure ihcurred by the MillerlSecond V Party On this account shall be regulatedas per instructions of Government of India 99 Even FCI hasissuedguidelines dated 178008 regardinginspection Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 285 1 5 4 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 7 analysisin respectof the procurementof paddy and ofrice stockduring Seasons2008009 Perusalof this documentrevealsthatproper has been for ensuring the qualityof the rice its supplyand storageetc The quality hasto be maintainedas per the by the Governmentof Indiaetc It is admittedcase of theparties that the deliveredthe milledrice to FCI upto the months 2009 It is alleged 1 thatat the time of deliveryFCI Kamal carriedout detailedanalvsisto r test the quality of the rice delivered by the 0 0 The petitioner hasplaced on recordvarious I 0 reportslll respectof the suppliesmade by the petitionerThese are I collectivelymarkedas Annexure Pw7with theWrit petitionThe acceptance Z reportsindicate that the milled rice suppliedconforms to the prescribed specifications as regards the qualityofthe ricesupplied C I In the next paddyseason 20092010 againthe partiesenteredinto t0 same kind of arrangement as in the previousSeason 200809 The Z petitioner was entrustedwith 4390MT of paddyfor millingfor the season m 200910 After lnillingthe rice wasto be deliveredto FCI not Iaterthan 7 Z 312010 for which followingscheduleof deliverywas under theagreement executedbetweenthepartiesfor this season as well October and November 2009 20Ioofthe allotted paddy December2009 25IdO e January2010 25Io 10 February 2010 150Io ioe March 2010 151ndo 11 The milled rice was to be deliveredto the FCI directlv in accordance Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document te 286 1 CWP No 1911of2010etce 8 withthe contractual in tenns of the dated1 02009 The claims to have milled 184 MT of paddyfor the monthsof 2009 andwhen delivery was sought to be madeto FCI it refusedto take the deliveryIt ls statedthat when the petitionermade enquines the reason for refusal of the FCI to take deliveryit receivedletter dated 10112009 lnnexure P8I issued by the Pawan GuptaDepot Manager FCI Karnal wherebythe was m communicatedthat the rice stockedby it at D31T Bajidahad been r declaredas 3elow RejectionLimit 6hereinaerrefened to as BR It 0 0 was 61rthercommunicated that as a pre condition thepetitioneris required I t5 to replace the rice at its own costs as per directionsofthe higherauthority for acceptingthe paddyfor the year 200C 10 A similar letter dated Z 271 1 009 was received from the District ManagerHAFED Kamal 6Annexure P l Ol askingthe to replacethe BRL stock of r rice I within the as per directions of the FCI The petitioner receivedyet anotherletter dated412 2 009 from the Assistant Food and Z Supplies Officer Kamal on the same lines advising thepetitioner to replace 10 the BRL declaredrice for the year 200809 to facilitatethedeliveryofthe 7 Z nce pertainingto the paddyseason 2009 10 The petitionermade a dated 21 22009 objectingto the demand of the FCl ED and Food and Supplies with the pleathat the delivery of rice for thepreviousyear 200809 was as per the agreementand quality 0Ve specitlcationsand norms Petitioner insisted for takingdeliverv ofthe rice for the season 20091 0 The petitioner hasbeen servedwith the impugned notice dated 81 10 64nnexure P issuedbythe Area Manageraskingit to replacethe substandard stocks with slock of applicablespecicationsfor Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 d1 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 9 season 200809within seven daysfailingwhich the Corporation reserves therightto dispose of substandardrice stockdeliveredbythe at its risk and costs withoul furthernotice and without prejudice to the legal includingbanningthe business dealingand to the State Government for blackisting This Ieuer Annexure PlI was followed bv anothernoticedated 151 2010 issuedbv the HAFED 64nnexureP21 advisingthe petitioner to replaceBRL nce 4nnexure P Both these Iettersare subjectmatter of r challenge in the presentpetitionThe submitteda detailedreply 0 C3 dated252010 6Annexure P131to theFCI and HAFED I C5 Challenge to theseordersis primarily on followinggroundse I OJThe are not entitled to raise disputein respecto the Z for the season 2008e09at the time of deliverv of rice for the 4 season200910 as both the transactionsare distinct and arise out different agreements I iiIDeliveryjnade duringthe season 200809 was duly acceptedas Z C to the prescribedspeciflcations and standardswithout any OO objection and thusno dispute regarding its qualityand could 3 Z be raisedin the next season iiOTestsconductedallegedly in respectof deliveryfor the year 200809 were at the back ofthe petitioner andwithouteven infonningthe petitioner 6v9Freshinspectionhas beencarried out after a periodof more than six months of the deliverywhen the nce suppliedto the FCI was stacked and e left out to the vagariesof weatherv 9 There has been violation of principles ofnatural justice There are three sets of repliesflled by the The replies Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 e 1 V 1 9e CWP Noe 1911of2010 etc 10 tlled by the FCI and the HAFED do not disputethe facts stated by the petitionerRavinderMalikDistrict Food and SuppliesController Karnal has statedthat the miller was to deliver 67Io rice of the paddyduringthe crop year 200809 aftermillingto the FCI within the stipulated periode upto313 2009 This deliverywas made as per the termsand conditions of the agreementand inilling of the petitionerhad been rended by District ManagerHAFED However no has rejected the rice deliveredbythepetitioner after eightmonthsandrefusedto Ct acceptthefurtherrice ofcropyear 200910 vide letterdated 101 1 009 0 O In the replyfiled by noA and 5 FCI their action is I C9 soughtto be justifiedon the groundthat rice suppliedby the petitioner I duringthe season 200809 was found to be substandard e 3elow Z RejectionLimit againstthe laid down for the relevantyear It lS furthermentioned that a super was carried out by Shri Janak I Raj AGM OQC9FCI Zonal Office North Noida and the analysisreports C3 dated 2302009 to 2802009 4nnexures R511A RIlB R511Cl Z showsthat the stocks deliveredbythepetitioner were below the laid down m norms BRL and the petitionerwas required to replace the samefor 7 Z which sufflcient was grantedto the petitionerIt is further Qm allegedthat merelybecause stocks were acceptedby the FCl petitioner cannot be absolved of its liability is stated that 111 fact petitioner succeeded in deliveringthe Below RejectionLimit stocks in connivance Ca with the officials ofthe CorporationIt is lrther mentionedthat officials of CorporationnamelyShri KCGarg Area ManagerSP Dubey AGA4 QClSNGaba Managerand RajeshChaudharyTechnical Assistant Were placedunder suspension and chargesheeted Someof them have even been Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 r 1 V IlV 11 CWP No 1911of2010 etce relievedfrom serviceofthe FCI According to noA and 5 216 MT rice deliveredbythe during theperiodfrom 122009 to 532009 was found to be Below Rejection Limit causingloss to the to thetune ofRsA6A8 lacs It is mentionedthat thepetitioner was afforded an to replacethe substandardrice The were not onlyagainst the but alsoagainst numberof othermillers It is furthermentionedthat the offer of the Corporation was m acceptedby about 31 millers who replacedthe substandard rice supplied tr duringthe season 200809 but thepetitionerfailed to do so 0 C havealso pleaded thatthere1S 1 arbitrationclausebeingClauseN023 111 I C5 the agreemententeredbetweenthe petitionerand respondent no6 which I tnter alia provides for settlementof all disputesby refeningto the sole Z arbitrationof the Director Food and SuppliesHaryanaanaging Director 2 of the Agencyor any person appointedby them in this behalf The I havethus challenged the ofthe writ petition The petitionerhas filed replication its stand in the writ Z petitionThe additional fact statedin the replicationis that even as per rn inspectionreportthe infraction in the specification is It is wao Z 81rtherpleadedthat the allegedsuperinspection was carried out after a periodof more than six monthsand withoutany notlce to the petitioner or associating it with such inspection I have heard learned counsel for the partiesat lengthand carefully 4aV gonethrough the record Duringthe pendencyof this petition some interim orders were passedaskingthe FCI to acceptthe stocks of rice for the season 2009201 0 andpay 500Iofthe billingchargesDetailedinterimorder in this regardwas Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 e e 1 eer CWPNoe 1911of2010 etco 12 on April9 2010 This orderpassedin CWP No191 1 of 2010 was extended to all thewrit petitions Issuesinvolved in this petitionare two foldsl l supplyof rice for the season 200809 GOSupply of custom millingof ricefor the season 20092010 both the transactionswere under distinct and separate executed betweenthepartiesgoverning the custoin inillingof m paddy for conversionto rice in accordancewith the contractual r andthe Schemefonnulatedunderthe 1985Order It is common case ofthe 0 U parties thatall supplies were bytheFCI from thepetitioner for the I C5 season 2008e09without any objectionin respectof qualityspecification I quantitymode and manner of deliveryetc as under the Z Not onlythatthe rice was acceptedeven payments were made to the petitionerand their securitydepositreleased by the HAFED r obviouslywith the concurrence ofFCI Even FCl in its detailedcounter did I not dispute the deliveryof nce and the releaseof paymentsand security Z without any objectionThe case projectedby the FCI IS that super QO inspectionwas carried out by the offlcials of the FCI wherein the rice em Z suppliedby the Lletitioner was found substandardie Below Rejection tl Limit BRLI This inspectionwas carried out bv the ofcials of the FCI d after six months ofthe flnal supplyby the petitionerlt is peninent to note that the supplyofthe rice was to be made in five phasesbetween October to 44 March At no stageduringthe periodof supplyspreading over six months any objection was raised regardingthe qualityspecifications of the nce suppliedIt was onlywhen the entire supplywas made and after release of payments andsecurityand aftersix months the super inspection was said to Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 e 1 t Mr CWPN0 1911of2010 etce 13 be carried out No has been renderedby the FCI for not carryingout any inspectionor duringthe six monthsof supply period or on of supply To the contrarythe haveplaced on recordtheanalysis reportin respectofthe quality ofthe delivery ofrice madebythem Theseanalysis were also carriedout by theFCI Apartfrom above the test said to be conductedby the FCI duringsuper inspectionwas carried out at the back of the 1 It would have been more prudentto associate the petitioner r when duringsuper inspectionany deficiencywas noticed in the rice 0 0 supplied by thepetitionerbut the FCI chosenot to associate thepetitioner I C5 the suppliers or even inform them It has also come on record that the I custommilled rice was lyingin thedepotof the FCl The condition under Z which storagewas madehasnot beenbrought on record Admittedlyrice lS a item It needsto be keptunderprescribed conditionfor longer C storagelife lf it is lefl to vagaries of weather it is open to perishNo such I materialhas beenbrought on recordor even pleadedin thereplyregarding Z the storageconditions of the rice suppliedby the petitionerduringthe 00 season200809 In any case the were not put to any notice or 17 Z provided an opportunity ofbeingheard thequalityspeciScation Qm beforecarryingout the test or even at the tiine thetest was conducted This has resulted into serious violation of the principles of naturaljusticeNotice to the petitioner was givenonlywith regardto of the alleged 40 substandardrice However at the time of determination whether the rice IS substandard or not no notice was ever issuedto the petitionerThus action of the respondents in 0re6ising deliveryof rice for the season 2009201 0 1S not justifiableunder any Clrcumstances have referred to Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 C 411V CWP No 1911of2010etce 14 of the Honble Coun passedin the case of Tapan Kumar Sadhukhan vs Food Corporation of India and others199616 Supreme Court Cases 101 In this Honble Supreme Coun has the need for improvingpublichealthWhile dealingwiththe of Food of lndia Act 1964 it has beenobserved that it is theobligation of the Stateor its agencyto raise nutritionallevel and improvepublichealth lt hasalso beenheld that the Stateshould not 1 allow substandard food grains to reach marketfor human consumption without upgrading the same so as to makeit flt for human 0 U While referring to this judgmentit has been pleaded on behalf of 0 that substandardrice cannot be utilized bythe Statefor supply I underthe publicdistributionsystemas it is injurious to publichealth 1 fail Z to understandhow thisjudgment is relevantin SO far as the interse dispute 2 between thepetitioner and is concerned State and its agencys r I obligation to providefood grainsfit for humanconsumption to theneedy C personswho are upon the Statesponsoredpublicdistribution Z systemcannot be disputedHowever thequestionin the presentpetition 1S m breach of mutual contractual between the partiesand mvo Z thereof This judgmentdoes not helpthe in any Ll manner exceptto obligate them to supplyonlysuch food grainsas are Ot for human consumption by upgradingthesubstandardfood grains havealso pleadedagainstthe of thewrit 41 petitionOll two counts firstlythat the writ petition involves disputed questionsof fact and thus remedyunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitionersSecondly there is an arbitrationClauseNol3 in thecontract agreement betweenthe parties Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 e4 d 61 CWPN0 1911of2010 etc 15 andtheonlyremedy availableto thepetitioner is to invoke theremedyby wayof arbitration It is true thattheHighCourt while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to entenain a writ petition involving seriousdisputed of fact However this ISnota ruleof law but a rule of discretionwherethe HighCoult exercisesa self restrictionto avoid to adjudicate upon disputed of fac 1 in exerciseofwrit jurisdictionIn thepresentcase there does not seem to be C anyserious disputed of fact so as to decline the pleaof the 0 0 in the writ petitionWhat is soughtto be projectedas disputed I 0 questions of fact is the supplymadeby the petitionerduringthe season I 20082009 have pleadedthat the rice suppliedwas Z substandardwhereas the petitionershave pleadedthe same to be conforming to the quality The supplyofrice its r I quantityetc is an admittedpositionamongstthe partiesThe C3 haveplacedon recordanalysisconductedbythe Food Corporation of lndia Z certitjling thequalityspeciflcations prescribed underthe agreementand the 00 norms laid down by the Govemmentof India This fact 1Snot disputedlt m Z has however beenpleaded bythe that when a super inspection Qm was conducted aftersix monthsof the supplyrice supplywas found to be substandard Such tests were not conducted in the presence ofthe petitioner or with their association Under thesecircumstancesit cannot be said that e thereare seriousdisputedquestions of fact The petitioners are disputing the analysisthe test conducted bythe at their back whereasthe are disputingearlier analysisconductedby their own officials certifying thequality So what is beingdisputedis the action Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 n r 1 4 1 CWP Noe 1911of2010etc 16 oftheirown bythe This Court is not called uponto decideaboutthequestion whethertherice supplied bythepetitionerduring the season 2008e09is substandardor not Coun is onlyconcernedwith the breach of contractual obligation and the violation ofhe conditionsIaid down in the year 1985order which is statutoryin nature Thus the pleaof the not to interferein exerciseof writ jurisdiction deserves 1 rejectionThe have relied upon a judgmentof the Honble 1Z Court passed in ABL Internation Ltd And another vse Export 0 O Credit Guarantee Corporationof lndia Ltd And others 10413 SCC I 0 553 wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that even wherethere are disputedquestions of fact and therelS no absolutebar for the Z writ petitionjurisdictionunderArticle 226 of the Constitutionof Indiacan be exercisedHonble Supreme Court haseven gone to the extent of saying that if facts requireoral evidencecan also be taken in exerciseof writ Z Where any break of contractualobligationsarises out of violation of principlesof naturaljusticeor arbitrary action of Staterequires 0 judicialscrutiny writ jurisdiction C2111be exercised Relevant observations 7 Z are contained in paragraph8 of the aforesaid judgmentwhich are reproduced hereunder As couldbe seen fromtheargumentsaddressedin this appeal and asalsofromthedivergent viewsofthetwo couns belowone ofthe questions thatfalls for our considerationis whethera writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India is maintainable to 40O enfOrCea Contractualobligation of the Stateor its by an aggrieved party In our opinionthisquestion is no more res integra and is settledbv a largenumberofjudicialpronouncementsofthis Coun ln KN Guruswamy Vs The Stateof Mysoreand others 11955C11SCR 3051thisCourt heldl The neXt 9Uestlonis whetherthe appellant can complainofthis by way ofa writ ln our opinionhe could havedoneso in an ordinarycase The appellantis interestedin these contracts and has a right under the Iaws of the State to receive the same Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 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 19P CWP No 1911of2010etc 17 treatmentand begiventhesame chanceas anybody else We would thereforein the ordinarycourse have giventhe appellant the writ he seeks But owingto the time whichthis matter has taken to reach us 6a consequencefor which the appellant is in no way to blame for he has done all he could to have an earlyhearinglthereis barely a fonnight of thecontract lettto go A writ wouldthereforebeineHectiveandas it is not our practice to lSSUe writs we must dismiss thisappeal andleavetheappellant content withan enunciationofthe law It is clear from the above observationsof this Court in the said case thougha writ was not issued on m the factsof thatcase thisCourt hasheld that on a given C set of factsif a Stateacts in an arbitrary manner even ltl a matter of contract an panycan the 0 court by way of writ under Article 226 of the U Constitutionandthe court on factsofthe said case is empowered to grantthe relief 12 I 0 The next questionwhich has been stressedby the I 1S existenceof arbitrationclause 111the contract agreement Z betweenthe partiesRelevant extract of Clause 23 of the Arbitration Agreement betweenthepartiesreadsas under 23All the disputesand differencearisingout of or ln L0 Z any manner touchingor concerningthis agreement m whatsoever except as to any matter the decision of 7 which is expresslyprovidedfor in the contractlshall be Z referredto the sole arbitrationof the Director Food and Supplies Director of the Agency or anypersonappointed by them in this behalf There will be no objection to any such that the person 1 appointed ls or was an employee of Food and Supplies Department and he had expressed views on all or any ofthe matter in dispute or difference The award of such arbitrationshall be Snal andoindine on both the partiesto this contract Uma 2014.05.05 15: 26 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity