A writ petition is not absolutely barred in the matters of non-statutory contract with the State, but the factual situation has to be tested to see whether it should be entertained. The High Court has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a petition and it will not normally exercise its plenary right to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, M/s. Vijay Shree Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'company' for short) the appellants come up before us by way of this appeal. The two appellants are the officers of Union of India and have filed this appeal on behalf of Union of India. By the instant judgment and orders, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to make payment of the amount to the Company for supply of second batch of 390 bales allegedly supplied by it. It was further directed that in default of a payment, the appellants would pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Shortly stated the facts are as under:

( 2 ) THE Company, Vijay Shree Limited, referred to as 'company' herein, is a limited company and owned a jute mill. It is also a sick Company under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and at the relevant time, was running the jute mill on the basis of a scheme approved by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. It received at order bearing No. S. O. 565 (E) dated 12. 6. 2000 to produce jute bags of the mentioned specifications and supply them by way of a sale as per the direction of Director of Supplies and Disposals, Kolkata. It appears that the Deputy Director of Supplies; and Disposals, Kolkata directed the writ petitioners to sell 780 bales of gunny bags vide the order dated 3rd June, 2003. This consignment was meant for a party, that is, Assistant Director (supplies) on behalf of the Governor of Punjab. The consignee was the Managing Director, Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation at Sangrur. It seems that the writ petitioners sent first consignment of 390 bales to Sangrur on 23rd June, 2003.

( 3 ) PETITIONER's case is that he sent the railway receipts bill raised against the discharge of goods along with the quality assurance certificate to the consignee, Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation ('marketing Federation' for short ). The writ petitioner pleaded that the petitioner was informed by subsequent letters that the 390 bales which were received by the consignee were badly affected by rains and that those 390 were lifted by the consignee to avoid further damages and stacked separately. It was revealed that the consignee had requested the Director of Supplies and Disposals to stop payment of 390 bales and had also requested to direct the writ petitioner to despute their representative for a joint inspection as per the terms of contract. It seems that thereafter there was correspondence in between the writ petitioner and the present appellants about this consignment of 390 bales and ultimately, the writ petitioner received a letter dated 12. 9. 2003 wherein the writ petitioner was informed that the sum of Rs. 35,85,447/- had been withheld from Bill No. L/78 pending finalisation of the case of recovery due from the writ petitioner. It is the case of recovery due from the writ petitioner. It is the case of the writ petitioner that Bill No. L/78 had nothing to do and that was pertaining to an entirely different and independent contract which had no relation with the earlier contract of the supply of 780 bales. The further case of the writ petitioner was that the petitioner, in fact, was already paid the bill amount in respect of the 780 bales and it is only out of the consideration of the subsequent supplies made by the writ petitioner, deduction was made by withholding the payment. According to the writ petitioner, this could not have been done and, therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for quashing of the order withholding the payments and, consequently, for releasing the payment of aforementioned sum.

( 4 ) THE writ petition seems to have come before the learned Single Judge on 8. 1. 2004 and on that date, the learned Single Judge passed the following order:"affidavi