WPMS 1183/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Ms. Menka Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was given a contract for the supply of the gas cylinders. The supply of the cylinders was not being made in terms of the contract and accordingly, the contract was cancelled, but, subsequently, on a representation of the petitioner, the contract was restored. In spite of the restoration of the contract, it has been alleged that the supply of the cylinders was not being made in accordance with the terms of the agreement and accordingly, the contract has been cancelled and a fresh tender has been invited. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondents, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, the Court is of the opinion that the contract is not in the realm of the writ jurisdiction which can be adjudicated since the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of invoking the arbitration clause under the agreement. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 14-06-2011 SP