[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 529 of 2008 ARYA U-CLIX E - SERVICES V/S THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Mr. VINAY SHRIVASTAVA, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 29.5.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This is second round of litigation. It is strange, it is contended, that since earlier this Court entertained the petition, therefore, the petitioner should not be shunt out on the ground of arbitration clause. The order passed in the earlier writ petition shows that when the matter was listed earlier, initially on 19.11.2007, it was simply got adjourned to 03.12.2007 and the observation was made by the Court that in the meanwhile the petitioner may submit representation, and the respondents were directed to decide the same within a period of one week from the date of submission thereof. Thereafter, when the matter came up for consideration, vide order dated 14.03.2008, that writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous, as the representation filed by the petitioner had been decided by passing a fresh order dated 29.11.2007, giving liberty to challenge the fresh order dated 29.11.2007, and subsequent order dated 16.02.2008, and it was observed that in case the petitioner [2] files a fresh writ petition to challenge those orders, the respondents will be at liberty to raise all objections, including objection about maintainability of the writ petition. Thus, to say the least, it cannot be said that earlier writ was ever entertained by this Court, so as to entitle the appellant to claim, that he cannot be shunt out on the ground of existence of arbitration clause. It is in this background, the present writ was filed, and the same has been dismissed, by the learned Single Judge, by observing that, may be the Collector had the power to waive the penalty, for which the petitioner made representation, which was not accepted, but there being arbitration clause, which permits the remedy, including grant of benefit of compensation, in lieu of loss or damage, in case of breach, or otherwise, the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of this Court. In view of the clear arbitration clause at Para 6 of the MOU, we do not find any error whatever in the order of learned Single Judge. The appeal is, thus, devoid of merit and is dismissed summarily. (KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. jpa/