817 r 1 4 11 914 1911of2010 etCe 1 CHANDIGARH 7 DATE OF DECISION2 4e4e2011 JleCWP No1911 of2010 Mls Parkash Rice Mill eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others m L 0 0 WP Noe3554of2010 NIJs Hanuman Rice Mill 82Another C5 eeePetitioners I Versus Z The State ofHaryanaand others r WP Noe5281 of2010 C IVIIsInder SinghAjit Singh Z eeePetitioner 0 Versus W2 State ofHaryanaand others Z Clw IAWP Noe5282of2010 Mls GanpatiRice Overseas 40009 eeePetitioner Versus State of Haryanaand others N052800f2010 Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 818 4 S e CWP Noe 1914of2010etCe 2 1 4 Mls AnnapurnaOverseas OeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others CWP N05279 of2010 IVIIsJhandu Mal Tara Chand aeePetitioner Versu StateofHaryana and others 0 0 Respondents of2010 0 1 lVIIsHaryanaRice Land eeePetitioner Z Versus StateofHaryanaand others C 0 WP Noe5287of2010 Z Mls Shiva Shiva 1377 00 1129 1 751i2 9r a Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others tl pWP Noe5284of2010 1eeee 1 OeePetitioner Versus l0I Ii Noe268 Il 41 512005909Y91 1 0r 1e 7 7 815 1 Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 819 Il CWP No 1911of2010 etce 3 P i 1 Mls Jai DurgaRice and General Mill i ePetitioner Versus The State ofHaryanaand others Noe5283 0f2010 MJs Hindustan Rice Mills e0ePetitioner Versus The State ofHaryanaand others 0 0 CWP Noe49170f2010 9 Mls Krishna Rice Si General Mills I eeePetitioner Z Versus State of Haryanaand others Respondents C Z Mls Raj Shree Rice MiIls oo OeePetitioner wmo Versus Z State ofHaryanaand others Ll eRespondents 1140CWPNo5286 of2010 Mls Mahavir Rice 8L General Mills C eeePetitioner Versus State of Haryana and others r 11L CWP 1r71 Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 320 44 1 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 4 P IVIIsHanuman Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others CWP Noe4937 of2010 Mls A One Rice Unit eeePetitioner Versus 1 StateofHaryana and others 0 0 C CORAM I Z HONBLE MReJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT2 MrTS Dhindsa Advocate MrOP GoyalSrAdvocate with MsRimplejeet Kaur Advocate MlROSharma DAG Haryana Z Mrari Pal Verma Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocatewith r MrArvind Seth Advocate MrS Dadwal Advocate Z Permod Kohli Je With similarityof facts and common lssues havingbeen involved in thesewrit petitionsthe same are beingdisposedofby this common order The petitionersin all these petitionsare Millers engagedln custom 4 milling the paddypursuantto entered into with the HaryanaState Cooperative Supplyand MarketingFederation Limited hereinafter referred to as the HAFED Even thoughthere are separate impugned notlCeS ln all these petitionshowever the contents being Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 321 i 6 V 1 5 1 5 CWP No 1911of2010 etce P commonfacts are beingnoticed om CWP No191 l of2010 State of Haryanaissued rice procurementlevy order called as Rice Procurement Levy9Order 1985 referred to as 1985 order9 This order has been issued under Section 30f the Essential Act 1955 with the objectiveofmaintaining the supplyofrice and forsecuringits equitabledistributionand availabilityat fair prices 10 of the aforesaid 1985 order empowersthe Government or the Director Food and Supplies to direct any rice miller to convert any stock or 1 C paddylnto rlce held by the govemment or lts agency or the Food 0 0 ofIndia on such terms and conditionsas may be prescribed by I theGovernment or the Director In terms ofthe aforesaid Clause ofthe 1985 9 Order the StateofHaryanadecided to engagevariousrice mills in the State Z ofHaryanafor Custom Milling of Rice commoniyknown as CN07 A detailed were formulated111 this regardon 199 2 008 r issuedbythe Director Food and SuppliesHaryanaUnder the 1985 Order I L and the the miller is requiredto deliver the rice aer Z custom milling to the FCI Allotment to the millers is to be made by the Cll District Level headed bythe DeputyDirector and comprising of Z District of procurementagenciesincludingthe Food Corporation tl ofIndiaIt also provides not to make any allotment to a defaulter rice miller Clause 5 fJ of the olicy 6AnnexureP49 providesfor execution of whereas Clause 09deals with the paymentof millingcharges For the paddyseason 20082009the petitionernamelyMls Parkash Rice Road Karnal was entrusted with 1439 MT tonns paddyfor rnillingA formal agreementenvisagedunder Clause 56Oofthe policyalso came to be executed on 2682008 Condition 15 of the agreement Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 322 e C CWP No 1911of2010 etc 6 PL for deliveryof the rice after millingas perprescribedquality laid down bythe ED directlyto the FCI Condition 17 of theagreementdeals with the mode and manner of deliveryThe said conditionis reproduced as underl 17The delivery of rice shall be deemed to have been bythe MillerlSecond Partyafter the stocks are loadedinto wagons or delivered into the godowns as per m directionsof the of8cial of the C First Party after necessary and 0 Ca3 approvalof the quantityin accordance with the C4 procedure of the First Partyat the cost the MillerlSecondParty It will be the responsibility of the Z MillerlSecond Partyto supplyA note weightcheck andall other relevant documents to the concerned memo agency after thedeliveryofrice for claiming I r from Food Corporation of India failingwhich Z he shall be liable to pay CCL rate of interest for the r delayedperiod All the expenditureincludinglabour mvo Z loading unloading and any other L1m expenditure etc incurredin connection with the delivery of ice within 8 Kms shall be borne by the MillerlSecond Pany In case rice 1S delivered beyond8 Kms the incurred by the MillerlSecond 4 Party on this account shall be regulatedas per instructionsofGovernment oflndia 99 EvenFCI has issued guidelines dated 17008 regardinginspection Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 323 1 44 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etc 7 Pe sampleanalysislIl respectof the procurementof paddy and ofrice stock duringKharifMarketing Seasons200809 Perusalof this document reveals that proper procedure has been prescribed for ensuring the qualityof the rice its supplyand storageetc The quality hasto be maintained as perthe guidelines prescribed bythe Government of Indiaetc It is admitted case of the partiesthat the petitioner delivered the milledrice to FCI upto the monthsof 2009 It is alleged 1 thatat the time of deliveryFCI Kamal carriedout detailedanalysis to test the quality of the rice delivered by the 0 0 The petitioner has placedon record various C5 reportsin respectof the suppliesmade by the petitionerThese are marked as Annexure 1e7 with the writ petitionThe acceptance Z reports indicate that the milled rice suppliedconfonns to the prescribed as regards the qualityofthe rice supplied r In the next paddyseason 2009e2010 againthe partiesentered into same kind of arrangement as ln the previousSeason 200809 The Z was entrustedwith 4390 MT of paddyfor millingfor the season OO 200910 After millingthe rice was to be delivered to FCl not later than Z 3132010 for which followingschedule of deliverywas prescribed under theagreement executed betweenthe partiesfor this season as well October and November 20091 20Ioofthe allotted paddy December 2009 25IedO e0a00 January2010 25Io do February2010 15Iedo March 2010 15Io 10 99 The milled rice was to be delivered to the FCI directlyin accordance Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 324 1 1 91 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 8 P with the contractualstipulation in terms of the agreementdated 1 0009 The claims to have milled 184 MT of paddyfor the months of 2009 and when delivery was soughtto be made to FCI it refusedto take the delivery It is stated that when the petitionermade the reason for refusal of the FCI to take deliverylt enquiries receivedletter dated 10112009 6Annexure I91 issued by the Pawan GuptaDepot Manager FCI Karnal wherebythe petitionerwas m communicated that the rce stockedby lt at DJ33ajida had been declaredas Below RejectionLimit lereinafterreferred to as BR It 0 0 was 8lrtherconicated that as a pre condition the petitioner is required C5 to replace the rice at its own costs as per directions of the higherauthority for acceptingthe paddyfor the year 200C1 0 A similar Ietter dated Z 27 11 009 was received from the District Manager HAFED Kamal e109askingthe petitioner to replacethe BRL stock of rice L within the specificationsas per directions of the FCI The petitioner I C3 receivedyet another letter dated 4 12009 from the Assistant Food and Z Supplies Offlcer Karnal on the same lines advisingthe petitioner to replace 11 the BRL declared rice for the year 200809 to facilitate the deliveryof the emm3 Z nce pertainingto the paddyseason 2009 10 The petitionermade a tl dated 2 1 122009 objectingto the demand of the FCl HAFED and Food and SuppliesDepartment with the pleathat the delivery of rice for the previousyear 2008 was as perthe agreementand quality 4eee and norms Petitioner insisted for takingdeliveryof the nce for the season 200910 The petitioner has been served with the impugned noticedated 81 2010 6AnnexurePel issued by the Area Manageraskingit to replace the substandardstockswith stock of applicablespecifications for Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 325 1 1 4 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 9 mr season 200809within seven daysfailingwhich the Corporation reserves therightto disposeof substandardrice stock deliveredbythe petitioner at its risk andcosts without further notice and without pjudice to the legal includingbanningthe business dealingand to the State Government for blackisting This letter Annexure P was followedby another notice dated 151 20 10 issued by the HAFED P advisingthe petitioner to replaceBRL nce 64nnexureIe29 Both theseletters are subjectmatter of 1 0 in the presentpetitionThe petitioner submitteda detailed reply 0 C dated2512010 6AnnexurePo139 to the FCI and HAFED I Challenge to these orders is primarily on followinggroundsl C5 I iThe are not entitled to raise disputein respectof the Z for the season 200809 at the time of deliveryof rice for the 4 e2 season20010 as both thetransactions are distinct and arise out different r agreements ii9Deliverymade duringthe season 200809 was duly acceptedas Z conformingto the and standards without any 00 objection and thus no disputeregarding its qualityand speciflcations could 3 Z be raised in the next season 11 conducted allegedlyin respectof deliveryfor the year 2008 wereat the back ofthe petitioner and without even informingthe petitioner 0v9Freshinspection has been carried out after a periodof more than six monthsof the deliverywhen the rice supplied to the FCI was stacked and 4eee left out to the vagariesof weather 6v 9 There has been violation of principles ofnatural justice There are three sets of repliesfiled by the respondentsThe replies Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 326 P 1710 9 CWP Noe 1911 of2010 etc 10 filed by the FCI and the HAFED do not disputethe facts stated by the Ravinder Malik District Food and SuppliesController Karnal hasstatedthat the miller was to deliver 670Iorice of the paddyduringthe crop year 200809 afler millingto the FCI within the stipulatedperiod 1eOe upto313 009 This deliverywas madeas per the termsand conditions of theagreementand milling of the petitionerhad been refundedby District ManagerHAFED However no has m the rice delivered bythe petitioner after eightmonths and refiised to accept the hlrther rice ofcropyear 200010 vide letter dated 10l l 2009 0 0 In the replyflled by noA and 5 FCI their action is I C soughtto be justifiedon the groundthat nce suppliedby the petitioner duringthe season 200809 was found to be substandard ie Below Z Limit againstthe laid down specicationfor the relevantyear It 1S further mentioned that a super inspection was carried out by Shri Janak t Raj AGM QC9 FCI Zonal Offlce North Noida and the analysisreports C dated 23102009 to 28102009 6Annexurese511A R5llB R511Cl Z showsthat the stocks delivered bythe petitioner were below the laid down OO norms BRL and the petitionerwas required to replacethe samefor mv Z which sufficient opportunity was grantedto the petitionerIt is further Itl allegedthat merelybecause stocks were acceptedby the FCI petitioner cannot be absolved of its Iiability It 1S stated that in fact petitioner succeeded in deliveringthe Below RejectionLimit stocks in connivance with the offlcials ofthe CorporationIt is further mentioned that ofcials of CorporationnamelyShri KCGarg Area Manager SO Dubey AGM QC9 SNGaba Managerand RajeshChaudharyTechnical Assistant were placedunder suspension and chargeleetedSome ofthem have even been Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 327 e1 r 111 51WPNo 1911of2010 etc 11 relieved fiom service ofthe FCI Accordingto iespondents noA and 5 216 MT rice deliveredbythe during the periodfrom 122009 to 53 2009 was found to be Below RejectionLimit causingloss to the Corporation to the tune ofRsA6A8 lacs It is mentioned that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to replacethe substandard rice The allegations were not onlyagainstthe petitionerbut also againstnumber of othermillers It is 61rther mentioned that the offer of the Corporation was acceptedby about 31 millers who replacedthe substandard rice supplied L duringthe season 200809 but the petitioner failed to do so 0 C43 have also pleadedthat there is an arbitrationclause beingClause No3 in I C5 the agreemententered betweerle petitioner and respondent no6 which lnter alia providesfor settlement of all disputesby referringto the sole Z arbitration of the Director Food and Supplies Director of the Agencyor any person appointedby them 111 this behalf The I have thus challenged the ofthe writ petition C3 The petitionerhas filed replicationreiterating its stand in the writ Z petitionThe additional fact stated in the replicationis that even as per r inspectionreportthe infraction in the specification 1S inequitableIt 1S aV2 Z lrther pleadedthat the allegedsuper inspection was carried out after a tl periodof more than six months and without any notlce to the petitioner Or associating it with such inspection I have heard learned counsel for the partiesat lengthand carefully 4e gonethroughthe record Duringthe pendencyof this petitionsome interim orders were passed askingthe FCI to acceptthe stocks of rice for the season 20092010 andpay 50Io ofthe billingchargesDetailedinterim order in this regard was Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 328 ev Ol CWP No 1911of2010 etce 12 e on April 9 2010 This order passedin CWP No191 1 of 2010 was extendedto all the writ petitions Issues involved in this petitionare two foldsl i supplyof rice for the season 200809 6ii9Supply of custom millingof rice for the season 20092010 both the transactionswere underdistinct and separate executed between the partiesgoverning the custom nlling of 1 paddyfor conversion torice in accordance with the contractualstipulations 0 andthe Scheme formulatedunder the 1985 Order It is cominon case ofthe 0 0 that all supplies were accepted bythe FCI from the petitioner for the 45 season200809 without any objectionin respectof qualityspecification quantitymode and manner of deliveryetc as prescribedunder the Z Not onlythat the rice was acceptedeven payments were made to the petitionerand their securitydepositreleased by the HAFED r with the concurrence ofFCI Even FCI in its detailed counter did not dispute the deliveryof rice and the release of paymentsand security Z without any objectionThe case projectedby the FCI is that super QO lnspectionwas carriedout by the offlcials of the FCI wherein the rice mWv Z suppliedby the petitioner was found substandardie Below Rejection 0 Limit BRL9 This inspection was carriedout by the officials of the FCI aftersix months ofthe final supplyby the petitionerIt is pertinentto note thatthe supplyofthe rice was to be made in five phasesbetween October to eeW March At no stageduringthe periodof supplyspreading over six months anyobjection was raised regardingthe qualityspeciflcations of the rice It was onlywhen the entire supply was made and after release of and securityand after six months the super inspection was said to Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 329 l e y 4 41 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 13 be carried out No has been rendered by the FCI for not 1 carryingout any lnspectlOIlor duringthe six months of supply periodor immediately on of supply To the contrary the have placedon record the analysisreportin respectofthe quality ofthe deliveryofrice madebythem These analysis were also carriedout bythe FCI Apart8om above the test said to be conductedby the FCI duringsuper inspectionwas carriedout at the back of the 1 lt would have been more prudentto associate the petitioner 0 when duringsuper inspectionany deflciencywas noticed in the rice 0 0 bythe petitionerbut the FCI chose not to associatethe petitioner 0 the suppliers or even informthem It has also come on record that the I custommilled rice was lyingin the depotof the FCI The condition under Z whichstoragewas made has not beenbrought on record Admittedlyrice 1S a perishable item It needs to be keptunder prescribed condition for longer C life If it is lefl to vagaries of weather it is open to perishNo such C3 materialhas been brought on record or even pleaded in the replyregarding Z thestorageconditions of the rice suppliedby the petitionerduringthe season 200809 In any case the petitioners were not putto any notice or 7 Z an opportunity of beingleardregarding the qualityspeci8cation beforecarrying out the test or even at the time the test was conducted This hasresulted into serious violation ofthe principles ofnatural justiceNotice to the petitioner vvas given onlywith regardto replacementof the alleged eeW rice However at the time of determination whether the rice is or not no notice was ever issued to the petitionerThus action ofthe in retilsingdeliveryof rice for the season 200e20 10 is not justifiable under any Clrcumstances have referred to 1 1 Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 330 e r1 4 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 14 of the Honble SupremeCourt passedin the case of Tapan KumarSadhukhan vs Food Corporationof lndia and others199616 Court Cases 101 In this judgmentHonble Supreme Court has the need for improvingpublichealth While dealingwith the prOVlSlOOSof Food Corporation of India Act 1964 it has been observed that it is theobligationof the State or its agency to raise nutritional level andimprovepublichealth It has also been held that the State should not 1 allow food grainsto reach market for human consumptlon without the same so as to make it fit for human consumption 0 0 While referringto this judgmentit has been pleadedon behalf of I C5 that substandardrice cannot be utilized bythe State for supply underthe public distributionsystemas it is injurious to publichealth I fail Z to understandhow this is relevant in so far as the interse dispute A between thepetitioner and is concerned State and its agencys 0 to providefood grainsfit for human to the needy I who are dependent upon the State sponsoredpublicdistribution Z cannot be disputedHowever the questionin the presentpetition lS OO breach of mutual contractual obligationsbetween the partiesand 7 Z thereof This judgment does not helpthe in any Om except to obligatethem to supplyonlysuch food grainsas are 6t manner forhuman consumption byupgrading thesubstandardfood grainSe have also pleadedagainstthe of the writ eJ petition on two counts firstly that the writ petitioninvolves disputed of fact and thus discretionaryremedyunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitionersSecondly there is anarbitrationClause No3 in the contract agreement between the parties Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 331 1 1 m CWP No 1911of2010 etce 15 j5 Wep andthe onlyremedyavailable to the petitioner lS to invoke the remedyby wayofarbitration It is true that the HighCourt while exercising wrlt jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to entertaln a wrlt petitioninvolvingsenous questions of fact However this is not a ruleof law but a rule of discretion where the HighCourt exercises a self imposedrestrictionto avoid to upon disputedquestions of fact 1 inexercise ofwritjurisdictionIn thepresentcase there does not seem to be Q any senous questionsof fact so as to decline the pleaof the 0 O in the writ petitionWhat is soughtto be projectedas disputed C5 of fact is the supplymade by the petitionerduringthe season 20082009 have pleadedthat the rice suppliedwas Z substandard whereas the petitionershave pleadedthe same to be to the prescribed quality The supplyof rice its 0 quantityetc ls an admittedpositionamongstthe partiesThe petitioners haveplacedon recordanalysis conducted bythe Food Corporation of India Z the qualityspeciflcations prescribed under the agreement and the CO norms laid down bythe Government of India This fact is not disputedIt wmo Z has however been pleadedbythe that when a super inspection was conducted after six months of the supplyrice supplywas found to be substandard Such tests were not conducted lll the presence ofthe petitioner or with their association Under these circumstances it cannot be said that 1 there are serious disputedquestions of fact The petitionersare disputing theanalysisthe test conducted by the respondents at their back whereasthe respondents are disputing earlier analysisconducted by their own officials the qualityspecifications So what is beingdisputed is the action Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 332 1 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 16 4a oftheirown employees bythe This Court is not called upon to decideabout the questionwhether the rice suppliedbythe petitionerduring theseason 200809 is substandardor not Court is onlyconcerned with the breach of contractual and the violation of the conditionslaid downin theyear 1985 orderwhich is statutoryln nature Thus the pleaof the not to interferein exercise of writ jurisdictiondeserves m reIectloIleThepetitioners have relied upon a judgment of the Honble 0 Court passedin ABL Internation Ltd And another vs Export 0 C Credit Guarantee of India Ltd And others 10493 SCC C5 553 wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that even where there are questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining the Z writ petitionjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India can C be exercised Honble Supreme Court has even gone to the extent of saying I that if facts requireoral evidence can also be taken in exercise of writ jurisdictionWhere any break of contractual obligations arises out of Z violation of principlesof naturaljusticeor arbitraryaction of Staterequires CfJ judicialscrutiny wrlt jurisdiction can be exercised Relevant observations 1mv Z are contained in 8 of the aforesaid judgmentwhich are tl here under As could be seen from thearguments addressedin this appealand asalso from thedivergent views ofthe two couns below one ofthe questions that falls for our considerationis whethera writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof India is maintainableto enforcea contractualobligationof the State or its 6e byan aggrieved party In our opinionthis questionis no more res integraand is settled by a largenumberofjudicialpronouncements ofthis Court In KN Vs The StateofMysoreand others 1955 9SCR 3051this Court heldl The next questionis whether the appellantcan complainof this byway of a writ In our opinionhe could have done so in an ordinary case The in these contracts and has a right under the laws of the State to receive the same Suresh Kumar 2014.04.25 12: 31 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 333 7 Z e 1911of2010 etce 17 CWP Noe treatmentand be giventhesame chanceas anybody else We would therefore in the ordinary course have giventhe the writ he seeks But owihgto the time which this matter has taken to reach us 6a consequencefor which the appelant1S in no wayto blame for he has done all he could to havean earlyhearing9thereis barelya fortnightof thecontract letlto go A writ would thereforebe ineffective and as it is not our to issue meaningless writs we must dismiss this appeal andleavetheappellantcontent with an enunciationofthe