Rights arising from contract cannot be enforced in writ petition.

N.K. Jain, ACJ.

1. These writ-appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.3.2000 made in W.M.P.Nos.5389 to 5395, 5778, 6659 and 6682 and 6683 of 2000 in W.P.Nos.3528 to 3534, 3749, 4334 and 4355 of 2000, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the respondent to make fresh supply and stayed the impugned suspension orders dated 12. 2000 and 22. 2000 for 45 days pending writ petition.

2. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India for Union of India submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding the writ petitions are maintainable and staying the suspension order, when the contract, which is a non-statutory, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. More so, there is a specific provision for arbitration in the contract itself. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not followed the judgment of a Division bench of this Court, which, while deciding an identical issue, held that no writ will lie in view of the arbitration clause. On merits, it is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the petitioners have not maintained the standards prescribed by the various control orders. As per the agreement itself, if any violation of standard prescribed is found, licences can be ordered to be suspended, arid that one cannot agitate such order on the ground of principles of natural justice. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that in the instant case as per the standard RON will have to be at 87, and when supplied with 88, it was actually found as 84, which is in clear violation. The petitioners were supplied with the test report along with the show cause notice, calling for explanation and after considering the explanation, suspension order was passed, which is within the jurisdiction and competence, and the same has been stayed at the interlocutory stage. The learned Single Judge has failed to notice the fact of complaints of adulteration received from the general public and tests were carried out at random and found that the product is in adulteration, yet orders of stay have been passed.

3. The learned counsel Mr. O. R. Santhanakrishnan for respondents in W.P.Nos.3528 to 3534 and 4355 of 2000 submits that in the sample test, adulteration was found and the licence was suspended for 45 days. He submits that no writ will lie when there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. It is also submitted that there is only one refinery to perform RON. test, whereas these petroleum products have to be supplied to 4 companies. Counsel submits that these products passes through tanker for transportation and reach after meeting proper, regular and periodical cleaning of the respective places on change of products, as per the procedure prescribed, and therefore, no question of any adulteration or variation in the standards prescribed will arise from the starting point to end. Counsel submits that admittedly, as per the test report it was below standard and therefore, there was no special circumstances to interfere with the suspension order. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge granted the main relief itself by way of interim order, that too when the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the interim order and to dismiss the writ petitions. The learned counsel relied on the decisions in M/s.Radhakrishna Agarwal and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1977 SC 1496 wherein it is held that “State while terminating contract of lease on breach of certain conditions of contract, opportunity to show cause against cancellation need not be given” and State of U.P. and others v. Bridge & Roof Co.(India) Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 3515 wherein it is held that “writ petition to restrain Government from making deduction is not tenable as the contract is a non-statutory one containing arbitration clause”. The learned counsel also relied on R.K.Koteeswaram. Prop. M/s. Padmavathy Construction