31 275 1 e13 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 1 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2 DATE OF DECISION 4A2011 11CWP Noe1911of2010 MJs Parkash Rice Mill t eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others 1 r 0 1 0 WP N03554 of2010 I Mls Hanuman Rice Mill O Another C45 eeePetitioners Versus Z The State ofHaryanaand others Q WP Noe5281of2010 t Mls Inder SinghAjiteSingh Z Cr eeePetitioner CO Versus mm StateofHaryanaand others Z ll Respondents tWP Noe5282of2010 Mls GanpatiRice Overseas 4m eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others Respondents N0S280 of2010 Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 276 r 4 r CWP No 1911of2010etce 2 0 Mls AnnapurnaOverseas OeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others CWP NoS279 of2010 Mls Jhandu Mal Tara Chand eeePetitioner Versus 1 C StateofHaryanaand others 0 C I N05247 of 2010 C4 Mls HaryanaRice Lande eeePetitioner Cr Z Versus StateofHaryanaand others r WP Noe52870f2010 Z Mls Shivo Shiva TradingCompany CQ eeePetitioner Vm Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others WP Noe5284of2010 Siri Ganesh Rice and General Mill 4ee eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others of2010 4 J Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 277 CeV CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 3 Mls Jai DurgaRice and General MiIl eeePetitioner Versus The State ofHaryanaand others Mls Hindustan Rice Mills OeePetitioner Versus r The State ofHaryanaand others 0 0 I JCWP N04917 of2010 0 Mls Krishna Rice 82 General Mills eeePetitioner Z Versus State of Haryanaand others I Noe5288of2010 Z Mls Raj Shree Rice Mills m eeePetitioner 7 Versus Z State ofHaryanaand others Jm Respondents 40CWP No5286 of2010 Mls Mahavir Rice G General MilIs C eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others veCWP N052850f2010 Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 278 Cbl V CWP No 1911of2010 etce 4 Mls Hanuman Rice MilIs qJ 1 eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others CWP N004937of2010 Mls A One Rice Unit eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others 0 0 0 CORAM I Z HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT MrTS Dhindsa Advocate MrOP GoyalSrAdvocatewith Kaur Advocate C3 MrR0Shanna DAG Haryana Z Mrari Pal Verma Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocate with r MrArvind Seth Advocate MrS Dadwal Advocate em Z Permod Kohli Je Ll With similarity of facts and common issues havingbeen involved in thesewrit petitionsthe same are beingdisposed of bythis common order The petitioners in all these petitionsare Millers engagedin custom 6 millingof the paddypursuantto entered into with theHaryanaState Cooperative Supplyand MarketingFederation Limited hereinafterreferred to as the HAFED Even thoughthere are separate impugnednotices ln all these petitionshowever the contents being s Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 279 C CWP No 1911of2010 etc 5 commonfacts are beingnoticed om CWP No91 l of2010 11 State of Haryanaissued rice procurementlevy order called as Rice Procurement 6Lelo Order 1985 lereinafter referred to as 1985 order9This order has been issued under Section 30f the Essential Commodities Act 1955 with the objectiveofmaintaining the supplyofrice andfor securingits equitable distribution and availabilityat fair prices Clause10 of the aforesaid 1985 order empowers the Govemment or the 1 DirectorFood andSupplies to direct any rice miller to convert any stock or C paddyinto rice held by the governmentor its agency or the Food 0 0 of India on suchterms and conditions as may be by theGovernment or theDirector In terms ofthe aforesaid Clause ofthe 1985 C5 I Orderthe StateofHaryanadecided to engagevarious rice mills in the State Z of Haryanafor Custom Milling of Rice commonlyknown as CMR A detailed were formulatedin this regardon 199 2 008 C issuedbythe Director Food and SuppliesHaryanaUnder the 1985 Order r and the the miller is requiredto deliver the rice after Z custommillingto the FCI Allotment to the millers is to be lnade by the OO District Level Committeeheadedbythe DeputyDirector and comprising of 7 Z DistrictManagerof procurementagenciesincludingthe Food Corporation L1m ofIndiaIt also provides not to make any allotment to a defaulter rice miller Clause 5 fl of the policy6AnnexureP providesfor execution of whereas Clause 09deals with the paymentof millingcharges C For the paddyseason 20082009 thepetitionernamelyMls Parkash Rice Road Karnal was entrusted with 1439 MT tonns paddyfor millingA fonnal agreementenvisagedunder Clause 5 60ofthe policyalso came to be executed on 2682008 Condition 15 6i9of the agreement Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 280 Ill CWP No 1911of2010 etce 6 for deliveryof the rice after millingas per quality laid down bythe ED directlyto the FCI Condition l 7 of theagreementdeals with the mode and manner of deliveryThe said conditionis reproduced as underl 17Fhe of rice shall be deemed to have been 4 bythe MillerlSecondPartyafter the stocks are loadedinto wagons or deliveredinto the godowns as per directionsof the ofcial of the r First Party after necessary and 0 0 approvalof the quantity111 accordance with the CAO procedure of the First Partyat the cost of the MillerlSecondParty It will be the responsibility of the Z MillerlSecond Partyto supplyA note weightcheck andall other relevant documents to the concerned memo r agency after the deliveryofrice for claiming from Food Corporation of India failingwhich Z he shall be liable to pay CCL rate of interest for the C period All the includinglabour e Z loadingunloading and any other Qm expenditure etc incurredin connection with the delivery of rice within 8 Kms shall be borne by the MillerlSecond Party In case nce 1S delivered beyond8 Kms the incurred by the MillerlSecond 4emm Pany on this account shall be regulatedas per instructionsof Government of India 39 EvenFCI has issued guidelines dated 1792008 regarding inspection 0 5 l Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 281 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etCe 7 1 sample analysisln respectof the procurementof paddy and ofrice stock duringKharifMarketing Seasons200e09 Perusalof this document reveals that proper procedure has been prescribed for ensuringthe qualityof the rice its supplyand storageetc The quality hasto be maintained asper the guidelines prescribed bythe Government of Indiaetc It is admitted case of the partiesthat the petitioner delivered the milled rice to FCI upto the months of 2009 It is alleged m thatat the time of deliveryFCI Kamal carried out detailed analysis to tr test the quality of the rice delivered by the 0 0 The petitioner has placedon record various 0 reportsln respect of the suppliesmade by the petitionerThese are marked as Annexure I7 with the writ petitionThe acceptance Z indicate that the milled rice suppliedconforms to the prescribed as regards the qualityofthe rice supplied r In the next paddyseason 20092010 againthe partiesentered into r same kind of arrangement as ln the previousSeason 200809 The Z was entrustedwith 4390 MT of paddyfor millingfor the season 00 200910 After millingthe rice wasto be delivered to FCl not Iaterthan m Z 313010 for which followingschedule of deliverywas prescribed under Qe theagreement executedbetweenthe partiesfor this season as well Octoberand November 20091 20Ioofthe allotted paddy December 2009 25IdO eeee January2010 25Iedo February 2010 15Io io March 2010 15Io io 99 Themilled rice was to be delivered to the FCI directlyin accordance pb Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 282 f CWP NOe 1911of2010 etce 8 withthe contractualstipulation of the agreementdated 1 02009 0 ln terms 1 Thepetitioner claims to have milled 184 MT of paddyfor the months of 2009 and when delivery was soughtto be made to FCI lt refusedto take the deliveryIt is stated that when the petitionermade enquiries regarding the reason for refusal of the FCI to take delivery it receivedletter dated 10 1 1 2009 1nnexure I91 issued by the Pawan GuptaDepot Manager FCI Kamal wherebythe petitionerwas m communicatedthat the nce stockedby lt at D3N Bajidahad been L declaredas Below RejectionLimit lereinafterreferredto as BRLI It 0 0 Was furtherconicated that as a pre condition the petitioner is required 0 to the rice at its own costs as per directions of the higherauthority for acceptingthe paddyfor the year 2000 10 A similar Ietter dated Z 27112009 was received om the District Manager HAFED Kamal P109askingthe petitioner to replacethe BRL stock of rice r within the specificationsas per directions of the FCI The petitioner C receivedyet another leuer dated 4 122009 from the Assistant Food and Z Officer Kamal OIl thesame lines advising the petitioner to replace f the BRL declared rice for the year 200e09 to facilitate the deliveryof the awo Z nce to the paddyseason 2009 10 The petitionermade a Qm dated 21 22009 objectingto the demand of the FCI ED and Food and SuppliesDepartment with the pleathat the delivery of rice for the previous year 200809 was as per the agreementand quality 4aee and norms Petitioner insisted for takingdeliveryofthe rice forthe season 200910 The petitionerhas been served with the impugned noticedated 812010 64nnexureIl9 issuedby the Area Manageraskingit to the substandardstocks with stock of applicablespecicationsfor VA Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 283 tY 46L CWP Noe 1911 of2010 etce 9 season 200809within seven daysfailingwhich the Corporation reserves tl 1 therightto disposeof substandardrice stock delivered bythe petitioner at its riskand costs without further notice and without prejudice to the legal includingbanningthe business dealingand to the State Government for blackisting This letter Annexure Pe1l was followed by another notice dated 151 010 issued by the HAFED Annexure Pe2 advisingthe petitioner to replaceBRL rlce exure P Both these letters are subjectmatter of Q in the presentpetitionThe petitioner submitteda detailed reply 0 0 dated2512010 Annexure Pe139 to theFCI and HAFED Challenge to these orders is primarily on followinggrounds C5 The are not entitled to raise disputelIl respectof the Z for the season 200809 at the time of deliveryof rice for the 4e season200910 as both thetransactionsare distinct and arise outjdifferent r ageements ii9Deliverymade duringthe season 200809 was duly acceptedas Z to the prescribed and standards without any CO and thus no disputeregarding its qualityand specifications could r Z be raised in the n6xt seasol iiiTests onducted alIegedly in respectof deliveryfor the year 2008 wereat the back ofthe petitioner and without even informingthe petitioner Ov9Freshinspection has been carried out after a periodof more than six rnonthsof the deliverywhen the rice suppliedto the FCI was stacked and eeee le out to the vagariesof weather v 9 There has been violation of principles ofnatural justice Thereare three sets of repliesfiled by the The replies Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 284 4 1 ir CWP Noe 1911 of2010 etCe 10 filed by the FCI and the HAFED do not disputethe facts stated by the l Ravinder Malik District Food and SuppliesController Kamal hasstatedthat the miller was to deliver 67Io rice of the paddyduringthe 1e crop year200809 after millingto the FCI within the stipulatedperiod upto313009 This deliverywas madeas per the termsand conditionsof the agreementand milling of the petitionerhad been refilndedby District ManagerHAFED However no has 1 the rice deliveredbythe petitioner after eightmonthsand refusedto 0 accept the furtherrice ofcropyear 200010 vide lettetdated 101 12009 0 0 In the replyfiled by noA and 5 FCII their action is I 0 soughtto be justifiedon the groundthat nce suppliedby the petitioner duringthe season 200809 was found to be substandard ie Below Z Limit againstthe laid down speciflcation for the relevant year It 1S lrther mentionedthat a super inspection was carried out by Shri Janak 0 e Raj AGM QC9 FCI Zonal Offlce North Noida and the analysisrepons I dated2302009 to 2802009 4nnexures R511A e511B R511Cl Z showsthat the stocks deliveredbythe petitioner were below the laid down OO norms BRL and the petitionerwas to replacethe same for 7 Z which sufficient opportunity was grantedto the petitionerIt is further alleged that merelybecause stocks were acceptedby the FCI petitioner cannotbe absolved of its liability It 1S stated that in fact petitioner succeededin deliveringthe Below RejectionLimit stocks in connivance C with theofficials ofthe CorporationIt is 81rthermentioned that officials of namelyShri KCGarg Area Manager SP Dubey AGA4 QC9 SllTGaba Managerand RajeshChaudharyTechnical Assistant were placed under suspension and chargeleetedSome of them have even been Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 285 r4 e ea6 V CWP Noe 1911of2010etce 11 relievedfiom service ofthe FCI Accordingto noA and 5 216 1 1 MT rice delivered by the petitionerduring the periodfrom 1222009 to 52009 was found to be Below RejectionLimit causingloss to the Corporation to the tune ofRsA6A8 lacs It is mentioned that the petitioner was afforded an opportunityto replacethe substandardrice The allegations were not onlyagainstthe petitionerbut also againstnumberof other millers It is rther mentioned that the offer of the Corporation was m acceptedby about 31 millers who replacedthe substandard rice supplied C duringthe season 200809 but the petitioner failed to do so 0 0 have also pIeaded that there 1S an arbitration clause beingClause No3 111 Cao the agreemententered between the petitioner and respondent no6 which I inter 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 in this behalf The have thus challenged the ofthe writ petition The petitioner has filed replicationreiterating its stand in the writ Z petitionThe additional fact stated in the replicationis that even as per oo inspectionreportthe infractionin the specification is inequitable It is m Z further pleadedthat the allegedsuper inspection was carried out afler a Llm periodof more than SlX months and without any notlce to the petitioner or associating it with such inspection I have heard learned counsel for the partiesat lengthand carefully 4 gonethrough the record Duringthe pendencyof this petition some interim orders were passedaskingthe FCI to acceptthe stocks ofrice for the season 2002010 and pay 50Io ofthe billingchargesDetailed interim order in this regard was Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 286 r Ib CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 12 on April 9 2010 This order passedin CWP No1911 of2010 was extendedto all thewrit petitions Issues involved in this petitionare two foldsl supplyof rice for the season 200809 ii9Supplyof custom millingof nce for the season 200e2010 both the transactionswer under distinct and separate executed between the partiesgoverning th custoin millingof paddyfor conversion torice in accordancewith the contractualstipulations andthe Schemeformulatedunder the 1985Order It is common case ofthe 0 0 parties that all supplies were accepted bythe FCI from the petitioner for the C5 season200809 without any objectionin respectof qualityspecication quantitymode and manner of deliveryetc as prescribedunder the Z Not onlythat the nce was acceptedeven paymentsweremade to the petitionerand their securitydepositreleased by the HAFED C obviously 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 1S that super CO mspectionwas carried out by the officials of the FCI wherein the rice av Z suppliedby the petitioner was found substandard ie Below Rejection Om Limit BRL9 This inspection was carriedout by the officials of the FCI after six months ofthe flnal supplyby the petitionerlt is pertinentto note thatthe supplyofthe rice was to be made in five phases between October to 4ea March At no stageduringthe periodof supplyspreading over six rnonths any objectionwas raised regarding the qualityspecifications of the rice supplied It was onlywhen the entire supplywas made and aer release of and securityand after six months the super inspection was said to Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 287 1 41 CWP Noe 1911of2010tce 13 be carried out No explanationhas been rendered by the FCI for not 971 carrylngout any inspectlOnor analysisduringthe six months of supply periodor immediately on of supply To the contrary the have placedon record theanalysisreportin respectofthe quality ofthe deliveryofrice madebythem These analysis were also carried out bythe FCI 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 Q when duringsuper inspectionany deflciencywas noticed ionthe rice 0 0 supplied bythe petitionerbut the FCI chose not to associatethe petitioner I 45 the suppliersor even inform them It has alSo come on record that the I custom milled rice was lyingin the depotofthe FCI The condition under Z which storagewas made has not beenbrought on record Admittedlyrice 1S a perishable item It needs to be keptunder prescribed condition for longer 0 storage Iife If it is Ieft to vagaries of weather it is open to perishNo such I materialhas been brought on record or even pleadedin the replyregarding Z the storageconditions of the rice suppliedby the petitionerduringthe CQ season200809 In any case the petitioners were not put to any notice or W3 Z provided an opportunity of beingheard regarding the qualityspeciScation tl before carrying out the test or even at the time the test was conducted This has resulted into serious violation ofthe principlesof naturaljusticeNotice to the petitioner was givenonlywith regardto of the alleged eeewe substandardrice However at the time of determination whether the rice is substandard or not no notice was ever issued to the petitionerThus action of the in re61sing deliveryof rice for the season 20020 10 1S not justifiableunder any Clrcumstances have referred to Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 288 14 1 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 14 of the Honble SupremeCourt passedin the case of Tapan V ol Kumar Sadhukhanvs Food Corporationof lndia and others199616 Court Cases 101 In this judgmentHonble Supreme Court has the need for improvingpublichealthWhile dealingwith the prOVlSlonsof Food Corporation of India Act 1964 it has been observed that it is the obligationof the State or its agency to raise nutritional level andimprovepublichealth It has also been held that the State should not m allow substandard food grainsto reach market for human r without upgrading the sameso as to make it tlt for human 0 0 While referringto this judgmentit has been pleadedon behalf of C5 that substandardrice cannot be utilized bythe State for supply underthe publicdistribution systemas lt 1S injurious to publichealth l fail Z to understand how this judgment is relevant in so far as the interse dispute betweenthe petitioner and is concerned State and its agencys C obligation to providefood grainsfit for human consuinption to the needy persons who are dependent upon the State sponsoredpublicdistribution Z system cannot be disputedHowever the questionin the presentpetition 1S Qo breach of mutual contractual obligationsbetween the partiesaild 7 Z thereof This judgment does not helpthe in any Qm manner exceptto obligatethem to supplyonlysuch food grainsas are fit for human consumptionby upgrading the substandardfood grains have also pleadedagainstthe ofthe writ 1 petition on two counts flrstly that the writ petitioninvolves disputed of fact and thus discretionaryremedyunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitionersSecondly there 1S an arbitrationClause No23 in the contract agreement between the panies v Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 289 W412 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 15 andthe onlyremedyavailable to the petitioner 1Sto invoke the remedyby 5 ol wayof arbitration It is true that the HighCourt while exercisingwrit jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to entenain a writ petitioninvolvingsenous questions of fact However this is not a ruleof law but a rule of discretion where the HighCourt exercisesa self restriction to avoid to adjudicatc upon disputedquestions offact in exercise ofwritjurisdictionIn the presentcase theredoes not seem to be 0 any senous questions of fact so as to decline the pleaof the 0 0 in the writ petitionWhat is soughtto be projectedas disputed I 49 of fact is the supplymade by the petitionerduringthe season 20082009 have pleadedthat the rice suppliedwas Z substandardwhereas the petitionershave pleadedthe same to be to the prescribed quality The supplyof rice its r quantity etc is an admitted positionamongstthe partiesThe petitioners CJ haveplacedon record analysis conducted bythe Food Corporation ofIndia Z certi6ring the quality prescribed under the agreementand the OO nonns laid down by the Government of India This fact is not disputedIt 0 Z has however been pleadedbythe that when a super inspection Qm was conducted after six months of the supplyrice supplywas found to be substandardSuch tests were not conducted in the presence of the petitioner or with their association Under these circumstances it cannot be said that e thereare serious disputedquestions of fact The petitionersare disputing theanalysisthe test conducted by therespondents at their back whereas the respondents are disputingearlier analysisconducted by their own officials certifying the qualityspecifications So what is beingdisputed is the action Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 290 4 16 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etCe oftheirown employees bythe This Court is not calledupon to C 0 decide aboutthe question whether the rice suppliedbythe petitionerduring theseason 200809 is substandardor not Coun is onlyconcernedwith the breachof contractual and the violation of the conditions laid downin theyear 1985 order which is statutoryin nature Thus thepleaof the not to interferein exercise of writ jurisdictiondeserves 1 rejectiOlleThepetitioners have relied upon a judgment of the Honble Court passedin ABL Internation Ltd And another vse Export 0 0 Credit Guarantee of India Ltd And others200493 SCC C5 553 wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that even where there are I questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining the e Z writpetitionjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India can 2 beexercised Honble Supreme Court has even gone to the extent of saying that if facts requireoral evidence can also be taken in exercise of writ Where any break of contractual obligations arises out of Z violation of principles of naturaljusticeor arbitrary actloll of State requires C t judicialscrutiny wrrt jurisdiction can be exercised Relevant observations Im Z are contained in 8 of the aforesaid judgmentwhich are here underl As could be seen from thearguments addressedin this appealand asalso from thedivergent viewsofthe two courts below one ofthe thatfalls for our considerationis whethera writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof India is maintainableto enforcea contractualobligationof the Stateor its 4ee byan aggrieved party In our opinionthisquestion is no more res integra and is settledby a largenumber ofjudicialpronouncements ofthis Court In K Vs The State ofMysoreand others 11955 J SCR 3051this Court held The next questionis whether the appellantcan complainof this by way of a writ In our opinionhe could havedone so in an ordinarycase The appellant is interestedin these contracts and has a right under the laws of the State to receive the same Batra Amit 2014.05.13 15: 23 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 291 4e r 4 cWP NOe 1911of2010 etce 17 treatment and be giventhesame chanceas anybody else We would thereforein the ordinary course have giventhe e the writ he seeks But owingto the time which this matter hastaken to reach us a consequence for which the appelant1S in no wayto blame for he has done all he could to havean earlyhearing9thereis barelya fortnightof the contract lettto go A writ would thereforebe