WP(C) 3004/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY This case pertains to rejection of the goods by the respondent IOC Ltd. on the ground that it doesn’t conform to the prescribed standards. Mr. A K Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submi ts that under Clause 15.1 of the General Purchase Conditions before rejection of the supplied ALUM as has been ordered, the supplier is entitled to have a 3rd p arty inspection of the supplied goods. Accordingly, he contends that the respond ent Corporation was not justified in rejecting the supplied item on the ground t hat same does not conform to the prescribed requisition. Mr. M K Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel representing the respondent IOC L td. however submits that under Clause 34.1 arbitration option is available for r esolving the disputes raised by the petitioner and unless such alternate remedy is exhausted, the petitioner is not entitled to move the Writ Court. The petitioner contends that the grievances of the petitioner’s cannot b e resolved through arbitration in terms of Clause 34.1. But considering the natu re of the grievances which involves interpretation of Clause 15.1, I am of the c onsidered opinion that, this is an appropriate dispute for which arbitration can be resorted too. Accordingly, this submission of the learned counsel is rejecte d. Having regard to the Clause 34.1 of the General Purchase Conditions, I a m of the view that without exhaustion of the alternate remedy, the present writ petition ought not to be entertained and the petitioner should be relegated at f irst instance to avail all the alternate remedy. In view of above, this writ petition is not accepted and the same is her eby dismissed.