The rights of the parties are governed by the terms of the contract, and the remedy for breach of contract must be sought in a civil court. The court's extraordinary jurisdiction is called for only when there is a plea of violation of fundamental rights.

P. Subramonian Poti, J.

1. Quite often parties complaining of civil injury resort to this court, invoking the jurisdiction under Art.226 to obtain redress of their grievance, in preference to a civil court where the same question may be agitated by way of a civil action. It would appear that parties assume that resort to civil court, is to be the last resort. Apart from the payment of heavy court fee the time that a litigation normally takes tempts a party to approach this court by way of a petition under Art.226 even in a case where the appropriate course would be to move the civil court by way of suit. Determination of obligations arising out of contract quite often call for decisions on questions of fact and for that reason the courts have been holding that appropriate remedy of the party aggrieved would be to litigate the matter in a civil court in a civil suit where there can be a full fledged inquiry. But assuming that in a case no such determination of question of fact is called for in a case would it be proper for a party complaining of a breach of contract to come to this court for redress seeking the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of the court. That is the question which arises in this case, a question which perhaps requires to be investigated.

2. The respondents in this case are the Food Corporation of India represented by its Regional Manager at Trivandrum and District Manager at Muzhappilangad in the Cannanore District. The petitioner is a contractor engaged in the work of transporting foodgrains from the Edakkad Railway Station to the Food Corporation Godown at Muzhappilangad and also from Cannanore Railway Station to the Food Corporation Godown at Cannanore. The terms of the contract are said to be embodied in the Under form. The term in clause 19 in the tender form provides for reference of any dispute between the parties to an arbitrator.

3. The dispute between the parties has arisen by reason of the fact that the District Manager at Cannanore the 3rd respondent, appears to have recovered amounts from the bills submitted by the petitioner for work done from time to time as demurrage charges said to be due to the Food Corporation. According to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,43,375.63 was withheld and so recovered purporting to not under the terms of contract, The petitioner's case is that no such demurrage charges arc due from him and the tender conditions do not entitle such withholding of amounts as demurrage charges. It is his case that the demurrage charges have been fixed arbitrarily and illegally. The petitioner would also contend that the cause for incurring demurrage charges was really because the Food Corporation was not affording adequate facilities to the petitioner to clear the goods from the Railway Station. It is averred that the petitioner requested the Regional Manager, the 2nd respondent, to refer the dispute to arbitrator by Ext. P2 petition and it was followed by a similar petition Ext. P3 but these did not have any response. Further petitions similarly filed also appear to have had no effect. The petitioner's complaint is that the 3rd respondent has recovered and is continuing to recover amounts from the bills of the petitioner without giving notice to the petitioner, without hearing him and yet claiming that such amount is due. In these circumstances the petitioner averrs that he has no other remedy except to seek a writ of mandamus or other order restraining the respondents from recovering any amount from him as demurrage charges and also to direct the 2nd respondent to refer the dispute to an arbitrator.

4. The claim of the petitioner is disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. In answer to the plea that the matter has not been referred to arbitrator it is contended that the Regional Manager's decision on this question is final under the terms of clause XII of the contract. The recovery of demurrage charges is admitted but it is contended that