CW 5926/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5926/2010 M/s Ambuja Pipes (P) Ltd Versus State & Ors. Date of Order : 03/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Alok Sharma, for petitioners Instant petition has been filed assailing notice dt.19/03/2010 (Ann.6) & order dt.15/04/2010 (Ann.7) whereby rate contract executed in between petitioner & respondents was cancelled in terms of provision of Clause 16.0 of rate contract – as a consequence whereof, amount of liquidated damages, forfeiture of security deposit, risk & cost purchase has been recovered as per Clauses 9.3, 7.5 & 16.0 of rate contract. Counsel submits that the petitioner is a small scale industry and terms & conditions under clauses of rate contract executed between the parties were arbitrary and offend to Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel further submits that in absence of any clause of escalation of price for supply of material to the respondents under rate contract, petitioner-Company would not be in a position to supply requisite material and to carry out the rate contract executed between the parties. The order under challenge clearly CW 5926/10 //2// depicts that since the petitioner failed to comply with terms & conditions of rate contract, the same was cancelled. The agreement under rate contract was executed on 29/10/2009 whereby it was under obligation to the petitioner Company to supply material within stipulated delivery period fixed as per rate contract clause 9.2 in the months from December, 2009 to February, 2010. But the petitioner-Company failed to supply the material under supply order placed by respondents-authority from time to time as referred to in the order impugned dt. 15/04/2010 (Ann.7) within stipulated delivery period in terms of rate contract; accordingly the same was cancelled in exercise of powers under clause 16.0 of rate contract – as a result whereof, amount of liquidated damages, forfeiture of security deposit, risk & cost purchase were ordered to be recovered under clauses 9.3, 7,5 & 16.0 of rate contract. Indisputably, the dispute arises out of terms and conditions of rate contract executed between the petitioner-Company & respondents, which is binding upon them. The petitioner-Company can certainly avail of remedy as provided under the rate contract executed between them. The submissions having been made in regard to the conditions of rate CW 5926/10 //3// contract being onerous, arbitrary and offending to the Constitution of India are of no substance for the reason that there was no compulsion in accepting such terms & conditions of the rate contract having been executed between the parties. Judgment in Hindustan Times Vs. State of UP (2003(1) SCC 591) on which Counsel has placed reliance, is of no assistance in the facts of instant case. In the opinion of this Court, what has been urged by Counsel cannot be adjudicated upon in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds no justification to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to avail of remedy under the law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/ 5926CW2010May3DsNIT.doc