1. As the issues raised in these five writ petitions namely C.W.J.C. Nos. 16359 of 2008, 16378 of 2008, 16551 of 2008, 19081 of 2008, 4432 of 2009 and 593 of 2009 are common, they are taken up for disposal together.

2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners pray refund of the entire amount deposited by them in bid with interest at market rate, as Railways failed to deliver the auctioned materials in time.

3. The petitioners are proprietary concerns engaged in sale and purchase of Railways scraps and other materials. Railways from time to time have been holding auction of its scraps and other waste materials, which are held at different places. The sale and purchase is governed by auction notice as well as Standard Conditions of Auction Sales. The auction notice and Standard Conditions of Auction Sales have been annexed as annexures both by petitioners as well as by the Railways.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were declared highest bidder in auction sales held by the Railways. As required under the auction notice and Standard Conditions of Auction Sales, the petitioners deposited the earnest money by fall of hammer on the same day. Further more pursuant to issuance of authorization letters the petitioners deposited balance amount within stipulated 20 to 50 days.

5. The case of the petitioners is that the Railways failed to make the delivery of auctioned materials in time as per the terms and conditions. In some cases the deliveries were not affected even in the extended period sought by the Railways itself. The non-delivery of the materials in time has caused immense loss, as global recession had set in. The petitioners state that they are business people and they tend to lose, if their money remains blocked over a time, rendering them helpless to rotate their business.

6. The Railway in its counter affidavit has taken the plea that delivery of materials in question could not be affected on account of water logging, rainy season and unavailability of officials of different sections like Vigilance etc. who are necessarily required to be present at the time of delivery in order to check pilferage and ensure transparency. The maintainability of the writ petitions have also been challenged in view of existence of the arbitration clause for settling and resolving disputes.

7. Learned counsel for the Railway submit that there are various disputed question of facts in this case. The disputed question of facts pointed out by the counsel for the Railways are as follows:

(i) Whether actually Railways was in a position to give the delivery in view of the natural calamities?

(ii) Whether the Railways could give delivery to only one of the auction purchaser at a time?

(iii) Whether 3/4 agencies like RPF, Vigilance, Engineering Department, Purchase and Store Department etc. are required to give delivery jointly?

(iv) Whether petitioner was required to seek extension for delivery period, more so the Railways are ready to waive the ground rent?

(v) Whether the writ petitions have really any substance in them or it is merely a forced litigation by a businessman to make good of the loss starting at his face due to fall in the International Steel prices?

(vi) Whether the Railways could have given the delivery of the stolen goods, had the petitioner performed his obligation under the contract?

8. In short the Railways contend that the petitioners cannot agitate refund of money much less with interest in the writ petitions in face of disputed questions of facts. Further, the writ petition is not maintainable as auction clause provides for settlement of dispute by way of arbitration. They have also drawn the courts attention to clause 7.1 of Standard Conditions of Auction Sale, which state as follows:

"7.1. No interest shall be liable to be paid by the Railways with any amount tying at the credit of the purchaser with the Railway administration."

9. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the Railways have relie