278 l 111 ee 51VP NOe1911of2010 etce 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND IIARYANA AT CHANDIGARHe 4 DATE OF DECISION 4e4e201 1 llCWP Noe1911of2010 Mls Parkash Rice Mill eeePetitioner 1 Versus StateofHaryanaand others m C 5 0 0 CWP No3554 of2010 I Mls Hanuman Rice Mill St Another C5 eePctitioncrs I Versus Z The StateofHaryanaand others 132 I WP No5281 of2010 Mls Inder SinghAjit Singh Z eeePetitioner OO Versus 7 StateofHaryanaand others Z tl Respondents WP Noe5282 of2010 Mls GanpatiRice Overseas 4 eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryanaand others Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 279 r n4 2 CWP Noa 1911of2010etce 5 Mls AnnapurnaOverseas 4eePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others 6CWPN05279 of2010 Mls Jhandu Mal Tara Chand eePetitioner Versus 1 C StateofHaryana and others 0 0 I of2010 C5 Mls HaryanaRice Lande I eeePetitioncr Z Versus 2 StateofHaryanaand others C I C3 Z WP Noe5287of2010 Mls Shiva Shiva TradingCompany 0 e0Pctitioner m7 Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others Qm Respondcnts Mls Siri Ganesh Rice and General Mill 04V eePetitioner Versus State of Haryanaand others eRespondcnts of2010 J Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 280 j1 3 CWPNoe 1911of2010etCe MlsJai DurgaRice and General Mill 9eePetitioner Versus The StateofHaryanaand others MJsHindustan Rice Mills eeePetillioner Versus m C4 The StateofHaryanaand others 0 0 Respondents I JCWP NoA917 of2010 0 Mls Krishna Rice Si General Mills I eeePetitlioner Z Versus StateofHaryanaand others I eRespondents Z Ms Raj ShreeRice Mls m eeePetitioner mw Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others Respondents 1140CWPN05286 of2010 Mls Mahavir Rice St General Mills 4 eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryanaand othcrs 0 1 Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 281 1 44 4 CWPNoe 1911of2010etce 1 Mls Hanuman Rice Mills 4eePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others Respondents CWP Noe4937of2010 Mls A One Rice Unit eeePetitioner Versus 1 r StateofHaryanaand others 0 0 Respondents I t5 CORAM I Z HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI C PRESENT2 MrTS Dhindsa Advocate MrOP GoyalSrAdvocatewith I Ms2implejeet Kaur Advocate C Mrl2OSharma DAG Haryana Z MrHari Pal Venna Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocatewith 00 MrArvind Seth Advocate MrCS Dadwal Advocat Z Permod Kohli Je With similarityof factsand common issues havingbcen involved lll thesewrit petitionsthe same are beingdisposed of bythis common order The petitioners in all thesepetitions arc Millers engaged in custom 4 milling of the paddypursuantto entered into with the HaryanaState CooperativeSupplyand A4arketing Federation Limited hereinailer referred to as the HAFED1 Even thoughthere are separate impugnednotices Ill all these petitionshowever the contents being Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 282 C 5 v4CWPN01911of2010 etce factsare beingnoticedfrom CWP No1911 of2010 Stateof Haryanaissued rice Ievyorder called as Rice Procurement6Lev Order 1985 hereinafterrefelred to as 1985 orderlThis order hasbeenissuedunder Section3 of the Essential Act 1955with theobjectivc of maintaining thesupplyofricc and forsecuring its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices Clause 10 of the aforesaid 1985order cinpowersthe Govemlnent or the 1 Director Food and Supplies to directany ricetniller to convert any stock or C paddylnto rlce held by the governmentor its agency or the Food 0 0 ofIndia on suchterms andconditionsas may be by I theGovemment or the Director In terms ofthe aforesaidClauseofthe 1985 C5 Orderthe StateofHaryanadecidedto engagevariousrice mills itl the State Z for Custom Millingof Rice coiilmonlyknown as CMR A W detailed were formulated in this regardon 198 008 Q4 issuedbythe Director Food and SuppliesIlaryanaUnder the 1985Order I and the the miller is required to deliver the rice after Z custom millingto the FCI Allotment to the millersis to be madeby tohe m District Level CommitteeheadedbytheDeputyDirector and of 7 Z District Managerof procurementagencicsincludingthe Food Cotporation tl ofIndia It also provides not to makeany allotnlentto a defaulterrice miller Clause 5 O of the olicy 6AnnexureP41 providesfor execution of whereasClause Ol deals with the opayment of inillingcharges 4 For the paddyseason 20082009 the petitionernatnelyMls ParkashRice ShivpuriRoad Karnal was entrusted with 1439 MT tonns paddyfor millingA fonnal agreementenvisagedunder Clausc 5 OOofthe policyalso came to be executed on 262008 Condition 15 6il of the agrecment Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 283 4CCWP Noe 1911of2010etce 6 for deliveryof the rice afterInilling as per quality laid down bythe HA17EDdirectly to the FCl Condition l 7 of the agreementdeals with the mode and manner of deliveryThe said conditionis as underl 17The deliveryof rlce shall be deenledto have been bytheMIerISecond Partyafler the stocksare loadedinto wagonsor deliveredinto thegodowns as per m directions of the offlcial of the Q First Partyatler necessary and 0 0 approvalof the quontitylll accordancewith the C5 prescribed of the First Partyat the cost of the MillerlSecond Pany It will be the of the 4 Z MillerlSecond Partyto supplyA note weightcheck 2 lZ memo andall otherrelevantdocumentsto the concerned Z agency aOcrthedelivelyofrice for clauning r Z paymentfrom Food of India failingwhich 4 he shall be liable to pay CCL rate of inllerestfor the m 4 delayedperiod All the expenditureincludinglabout 2 Z loading unloading and any other Il expenditure etc incurredin connectionwith thedelivery of 4ice within 8 Kms shall be borne by the MillerlSecondParty 111COSC rice lS delivcred beyond8 4 Kms the expenditureillcurred by the MillerlSecond Pany Oll this account shall be regulatedas per instructions ofGovenlinent oflndia 99 Even FC1 has issuedguidelinesdat 1782008 regardinginspection Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 284 7 S40 CWPNo 1911of2010etce e sampleanalysis lll of the of paddyand ofrice stockduringKharifMarketing Seasons2008e09 Perusalofthis documentrevealsthat proper has been for ensuringthe of the rice its supply and storageetc The quality hasto be maintainedas per theguideiincs bythe Governmentof Indiaetc lt is admittedcase ofthepartics that thepetitioner deliveredthe milled rice to FCl upto the monthsof 2009 lt is alleged thatat the time ofdeliveryFCI Kamolcarried out detailedanalysisto m r test the quality of the rice delivered by the 0 0 The petitioner hasplaced on rccord various C5 reportsin of the suppliesmade by the These are I markedas Annexure Pe7 witohthe writ Thc acceptance Z indicate that the milled rice suppliedconforms to the 1 as regards thequalityof lherice supplied C4 In the next paddyseason 20092010 againthe pattiesenteredinto I same kind of arrangement as lll thc previousSeason 200809 The Z was entrustedwith 4390 MT of paddyfor miiling for the season 00 200910 Afterlnillingthe rice wasto be delivered to FCI not Iaterlhall eaW Z 312010 for which followingschedulcof delivetywas under D ll theagreement executedbetweentheparties for this season as well October andNovember 2009 200Ioofthe allotted paddy December2009 250 mdO eeae January2010 25Io edoe February 2010 15Io mdo March2010 15Io ado 91 The milled rice was to be delivered to the FCl directlyin accordance Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 285 1 tl CWP No 1911of2010etc 8 withthe contractual interms of the agreementdated 1102009 The petitioner claims to have milled 184 MT of paddyfor the monthsof OctoberlNovember2009andwhendelivery was sought to be madeto FCl it refusedto take the deliveryIt is statedthat when the petitioner Inade enquiries the reason for refusalof the FCI to take deliveiyIt received letter dated 1012009 lnncxure Pe91issucd by the Pawan Gupta DepotManagerFCI Karnal wherebythe pctitionerwas 1 communicatedthat the rice stockedby it at DlN Bajidahad beeil declaredas Below Rejection Limit OlereinaRer referredto as BR lt 0 0 was fiirthercommunicatedthatas a pre condition thepetitioneris required t5 to replace the rice at its own costs as per directionsof thehigherauthority I for acceptingthe paddyfor thc year2009 10 A sinlilar Ietter dated 4 Z 271 12009 was received from thc District ManagerHAFED Karnal 2 6Annexure Pe101askingthe petitioner to replacethe BRL stock of rice 4 I within the specificationsas pcr directionsof the FCi he petitioner receivedyet anotherletter dated412 2 009 from the AssistantFood and Z Supplies Offlcer Kamal on thesame lines advisingthcpetitioner to replace 10 the BRL declarednce for the year 200849 to facilitatcthe clelivery ofthe 7 Z nce pertainingto the paddyseasoll 2009 10 The petitionermade a dated 2 1122009 objecting to the demandof the FC1 HAFED and Food and SuppliesDepartinentwith the pleathat the delivery ofrice for thepreviousyear 200809 was as per the agreementand quality 9ee specifications and norms Petitionerinsisted for takingdeliveryoftlle rlce for the season 200910 The petitionerhasbeenserved with the impugned notice dated 82010 4nnexurePal I issuedbythe Area Manageraskingit to replacethe substandardstocks with slock of appllcable for Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 286 1 9 ew 9 CWP Noe 1911of2010etc within seven daysfailingwhich theCorporation reserves season therightto dispose of substandard rice stockdeliveredbythe at its risk andcosts without furthernotice andwithout to the Iegal includingbannillgthe business dealing and to the State Goveminent for blackelistingThis Ietter Annexure P was followed byanothernotice dated151 201 0 issuedby the HAFED6Annexure 121 advisingthe petitioncr to replaceBRL rice 1 4nnexureI21 Both tllcse letters are subjectmatterof r in the presentpetitionThe submitteda detailedreply 0 0 dated252010 6Annexure Pel3Ito theFCl andHAFED I to theseordersis primarily on following C5 I The are not entitled to raise disputeIll respectof the Z for the season 2008m09at the timc of deliveryof rice for the O4v season200910 as boththe transactionsurc distinct andariseoutldifferent r agreements I t iiIDelivery made duringthe season 200809 was duly as Z conforming to the prescribedspecifications and standardswithout any rio objection and thusno dispute regarding its qualityand specifications could 7 Z be raised in the nekt seasot iiilTestsconductedallegedly in respectof cleliveryfor thc year200809 were at theback ofthe petitioner and withouteven informingthe pctitioner Ov9Freshinspectionhas beencarried out aller a periodof nlore than six months of the deliverywhen the rice suppliedto the FCl was stacked and 4ee lell out to the vagariesof weather I l There has been violation of principlesof naturaljustice There are three sets of repliesfiled by thc The replies e Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 287 e 10 WP No 1911of2010 etce filed by the FCI and the HAFED do not dispute the facts stlatedby thc RavinderMalik District Food and Supplies Controller Kamal hasstatedthat the miller wasto deliver67Iorice of the paddyduringthe 200809 after millingto the FCl within the period 1ee crop 3132009 This deliverywas madeas per the tenns andconditionsof theagreementand milling of the pctitionerhad been refunded byDistrict ManagerHAFED However no has 1 the rice deliveredbythepetitioncr aflereightmonthsand refusedto tr the furtherrice of crop year 2009e10vide letterdatl 101 12009 0 0 In the replyfiled by noA and 5 OCI their action is I t5 sought to be justified on the ground that nce suppliedby the petitioner duringthe season200809 was found to be substandardie Below 1 Z Limit against the laid down for lhc relevantyear lt 1S furthermentionedthat a super inspcction was carriedout by Shri Janak 0 RajAGM QC FCl Zonal Offlce Nortll Noida and the analyslsreloorts C dated23102009 to 28102009 lnncxurcs R511A R511B Re511Cl Z showsthat the stocks delivered bythepetitioner were below the laid down CQ norms BRL andthe was rcquired to rcplace the same for m2 Z which sufficient was grantcd to the petitioncrlt is furthcr m allegedthat merelybecause stocks werc by tle 17Cl loetitioner cannot be absolved of its iiability Ili is stated that lll fact petitioner l succeeded in deliveringthe Below RejectlonLimit stocks in conn ivance C with the offlcials ofthe Corporationlt is furtller mentioned that omcials of CorporationllamelyShri KCGarg Arca A4anagerS Dubey AGM 6QCI SlllGaba Mmagerand RajeshChaudharyTechnical Assistant were placed under suspension and Some ofthcm have even been Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 288 14 1 L190 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etce 11 ftom serviceofthe FCl According to noA and5 216 MT rice deliveredbythe during theperiodfrom 1222009 to 53 2009 was found to be Below Rejection Limit causingloss to thc to thetune of RsA6A8 lacs It is mentionedthatthe was afforded an to replacethe substandardrice Thc were not onlyagainst the but alsoagainst numberof othermillers It is furthermentionedtohat hc offer of thc Corporation was 1 by about 31 millers who replaced the substandardnce supplied Q duringthe season 200809 but the failed to do so 0 0 havealso pleadedthat thereis an arbitrationclausebeingClauseNol3 in I 0 the agreemententeredbetweenthepetitionerand no6 which I inter alia provides for settleinentof all disputcsby referring to the sole Z arbitrationof the Director Food and Supplics Director 2 of the AgencyOr any person appoinlcdby thetll in this behalf The Q I have thuschallenged the ofthe writ petition 0 The petitionerhas filed replication its stand in the writ Z petitionThe additional fact statedin the replication is that even as per 00 inspectionreportthe infraction in the speciOcation is It is 47 Z hlrther pleadedthat the allegedsuper was carried out after a periodof more than SlX monthsand without ony notice to the petitioner Or associating it with such inspection I have heard learned counselfor the partiesat Iengthand carcfully Ce gonethroughthe record Duringthe pendencyof this petitionsome interim orders were passedaskingthe FCI to acceptthe stocks of ricc for the season 20092010 andpay 50Ioofthe billingchargesDetailedintcritnorder in thisregard was Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 289 Is WP Noe 1911f2010etc 12 on April9 2010 This orderpasscd in CWP No91 1 of 2010 was extended to all the writ Issuesinvolved in this petitionare two foldsl l supplyof rice for the season 200809 of custom milli ng of ricefor the season 20092010 both the transactionswere under distinct andseparate executedbetweenthepartics thc custom millingof 1 paddy for conversionto rice in accordancewith thecontractualstipulations 0 andtheSchemeformulatedunderthe 1985Order It is cotnmon case ofthe 0 0 that all supplies were bytheFCI from thepetitioner for the C5 season 200849 without any objection in respectof qualityspecicatioil I quantitymode and manner of delivery etc as under the Z Not onlythattherice was acceptedeven paytnents werc nlade to the petitionerand their securitydepositreleascd by thc HAIED r obviouslywith the concurrence ofFCI 1Ien FCI ul its detailedcounter dide I C0 not clispute thedeliveryof nce and the releaseof payments and security Z without any objectionThe case projectedby the FCI IS that super 00 inspection was carried out by the officials of the FCl wherein the nce 3 Z suppliedby the petitionerwas found substandardi Below Rejection Om Limit BRLI This inspection was carriedout by the offlcials of the FCI afier six months ofthe flnal supplybyhc pctitionerlt is pertinentto note that thesupplyofthe rice was to be lnade in ilve phasesbetweenOctoberIlo GWe March At no stageduringthe periodof supplyspreading over six months any objectionwas raised regardingthe qualitoy of the rtce suppliedIt was onlywhen the entire supplywas lnade and afler release of payments and securityand after six months the super inspection was said to Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 290 1 13 e WP Noe 1911of2010 etce be carried out No has bccn renderedby tlle FCl for not out any or analysisduringthe six inonths of supply periodor on of supply To the contrary the ofthedeliveryofrice madebythem These were also carriedout by theFCI Apartfrom above the test saidto be conductedby the FCI duringsuper was carriedout at the back of the 1 It would have been more prudent to assoc Iatc the petitioner r when duringsuper any deflciencywas noticed in the rice 0 0 bythepetitioner but the FCI chosenot to associatcthepetitioner I C5 the suppliers or even informthem lt has also colne on record that le I custoinmilledrice was lyingin thc depotof the FCI The conditionunder Z whichstoragewas madehasnot beenbrought on record Adinittedlyrice is a ltenll lt needsto be keptunder condition for Ionger r life If it is lefl to vagaries of wcather lt is opento perishNo such I materialhasbeenbrought on recordor cvcn pleadedin thereplyregardiilg Z thestorageconditions of the rice suppliedby the petitionerduringthe C season2008e09 In any case the petitioners were not put to any notice or avm Z an ofbeingheardrcgardingthequality Om beforecarryingout the test or even at thetiine thetest was conductedhis hasresultedinto serious violation ofthe principles ofnatural justiceNoticc to the petitioner was givenonlywith regardto of the allegcd aoed substandardrice However at the timc of determination whether the nceIS substandard or not no notice was ever issued to the petitionerThus action of the respondents in refusingdeliveryof rice for the season 200902010is not justifiableunder any circumstanccs have referred to 6 Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 291 414 WP No 1911of2010etce 14 of the Honble SuprelneCoutt passedin the case of Tapan Kumar Sadhukhan vs Food Corporation of lndia and others199616 Supreme Court Cases 101 ln this judginent Honble Supremc Court has the need for improvlngpublichealth While dealingwith the provisioils of Food of India Ac4 1964 it has been observed that it is the obligation of the Stateor its agencyto raisenutritionallevel and improvepublichealthIthas also becn held thatthc Stateshould llOt allow substandard food grainsto reach market for human consumption Q without upgrading the same so as to makeit Ot for hunlan 0 C0 While referring 10 this it has been pleadedon behalf of I CD that substandardrlce cannot be utoilizedbythc Statefor supply I underthe publicdistributionsystemas i1is injurious to publichealth 1fail Z to understandhow thisjudgment is relevant111 SO far as the interasedispute 5r betweenthe petitioner and is concerned Stateandits agencys Lr obligation to providefood graillS flt for humanconsuinption to theneedy C0 persons who are dependent upon the Stltc sponsoredpublic dlstribution Z et systemcannot be disputedHvever thequestion in the presentpetition lS m 4r breach of tnutual contractual between thc partiesalld 3Z consequencesthereof This judgment docs not helpthe iil any manner exceptto obligate them to supplyonlysuch food grainsas are fit for humanconsumptionbyupgradingthc subslandardfood grains havealso pleadedoguinstohc ofthe wnt 4J petitionon two counts tlrstlythat thC wrIt petition involvcs disputed questionsof fact and thus rctnedyunder Article 226 of the Constitutionof India is not availableto the petitionersSecondlythereis an arbitrationClauseNo3 in the contract agreement bctweenthe parties 1 7 Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 292 41 CWP Noa 1911of2010 etc 15 andtheonlyremedy availableto thepcttioner 1Sto invoketheremedyby wayof arbitration Itis true thattheHighCourt while exercisingwrit under Article226 of the Constitutionshould be reluctant to entei1ain a wrlt involving seriousdisputed of fact However this is not a rule oflaw but a rule of discretionwhcreliheHighCourt exercisesa self imposed restrictionto avoid to upondisputed questions of fact 1m inexerciseof writjurisdiction In theprcscntcase tllercdoesnot seem to be any senous of fact so as to decline the pleaof the 0 0 in the writ petitionWhat is sought to be projected as disputed I 0 of fact is the supplymadeby the petitionerduringthe season I 20082009 have pleadedthat the rice suppliedwas Z substandardwhereas the have pleadedthe same to be m to theprescribed quality Thc supplyofrice lts t I quantityetc 1S an admittedpositionanlongstthe partiesThe haveplaced on recordanalysis conductedbytlle Food of lndia Z certifying thequality prescribed under the agreementandthe m nonns laid down by the Govemmentof lndia This fact IS llOt disputedIt me Z has however been pleadedbythe thatwhen a super inspection ll was conducted after six monthsof thc supplyrlce supplywas found to be substandard Suchtests were not conducted in the presence of tlle petitioner or with their association Under thesccircumstances it cannot be said that Ve1 there are serious disputedquestionsof factl The petitioncrsare disputing the analysisthe test conducted bythe at their back whereasthe respondents are disputingearlier analysisconducted by their own oftlcials certifying the quality So what is beingdisputed is the action Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 293 Iw 16 esn CWP Noe 1911of2010 etc oftheirown bythe ThisCourt is not calleduponto decide aboutthequestion whethertherice supplied bythc petitionerduring theseason 2008m09is substandardor 1101Coun is onlyconcernedwith thc breachof contractuaI obligation and the violation of the conditions Iaid down in the year 1985order which is statutoryln nature Thus thepleaof the not to interferein exerciseof writ deserves t rejectionThe petitioners have relied upon a judgmentof the Honble 0 Supreme Court passedin ABL Internation Ltde And another vs Export 0 U Credit Guarantee Corporation of Indin Ltd And others 200493 SCC C5 553 whereinHonble Supreme Court has held that even where thereare disputed questions of fact and therelS tlO absolutebar for thc Z writ petitionjurisdictionunderArticle 226 of the Constitutionof India can L be exercised Honble Court haseven gone to theextent ofsaying 4 I that if factsrequireoral evidenceCall also be taken in exerciseof writ 0 Z jurisdiction Where any break of contractual arises out of violation of principlesof naturaljusliceor arbitrary actlOll of Staterequires OO 4 judicialscrutiny writ jurisdiction can be exercised Relcvant observations 7 Z are contained in paragraph8 of thc oforesaid which arc tl reproduced here under Acould beseen Oomthearguments addressedin this appeal and asalsofromthedivergent viewsofthe two couns beiowone ofthc questions thaalls for our considerationis whethera writ petition under Article 226 of thc Constitutionof Indiais maintainable to 4e enforce a contractualobligationofthe Stateor its by an aggrieved party Inpinion thisqueticlnis no tnore res integra and is settlcdby a largenumberofjudicialloronouncementsofthis Coun ln KN Y S others119551R 3051this Court heldl The next questionis w11ct17er the appellant can colnplain01 this by way of a write ln our opinionhe could havedOne so in an ordinary case The appellant ls interestedin these contracts and has a right under the Iaws of the State to receive thc same Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 294 rJ Ie CWPNO 1911of2010etce 17 treatment and begiventhesame chanceas anybody else Wewould thereforein tlle ordinary course have givcnthe the writ hc seeks But owingto lhe te which tlis matter hastaken to reach us a conscquencefor which thc appeltanl lS ln no wayto blame for he has done all he could to have an earlyhearinglthereis barelya fortnight of thecontract lellto go A writwouldthereforebe inefTectiveandas it is not our practice to issue writswe must dismiss this appeal and leavetheappellant contentwithan enunciationofthe Ial It is clear frotn thc above observationsof this Court in the said casc though a writ was not issucd oll thefactsof thatcase thisCourl hasheld thaton a given setof factslf a Stateacts in an arbitrary manner even lll Q amatterof contract on pattycan the 0 court by way of writ under Article 226 of the andthe court on factsofthe said 0 caseis to granttherelief I I C5 The next questionwhich has been vehementlystressedby thc I ls eXlstence of arbitrationclause in the contract agreement Z betweenthe partiesRelevant extract of Clause 23 of the Arboitratl 2 1Z between thepartiesreadsas undcrl 23All thedisputes and differenccarisil7gout of or lll L3 Z any manner touchiilgor this agreement ao whatsoever except OS to any mattcr the decision of 7 vvhichis provided for in thc contractlshall be Z referredto the sole arbitrationof the Director Food and Supplies Director of the AgencyOr anypersonappolIlted by them in this behalf There will be no objectionto any such appointmcntthot the person WP1 appointed lS Or WaS Wl elnployeeof Jood and Supplies and he had expressed views on all or any ofthe matter in dispute or difference The award of such arbitrationshall be Onal and binding on botll the parties to this contract 99 Parkash Om 2014.05.06 12: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 295 4 18 444 CWP Noe 1911of2010 etc 1 in lhis regardis also required to be Contentionof the for followingreasonsla For the session thereis no disputebetweenthe parties breachof any contractual FCI hassimplyrefusedto the rice from the millers on the ground that rice supplied in the prevlOUSyear be replaced beingsubstondardThis clearlyestablishesthat 1 thereis no disputeas the of under