O R D E R

The writ petition had originally been filed in the nature of certiorari seeking interference with the show cause notice in Letter No. CE/MM/SE/MMI/EEI/AEE1/F.PO.No.99/D.244/2022 dated 20.10.2022 of the second respondent which according to the petitioner was arbitrary and violation of established principles of law.

2. Unfortunately during the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent appears to have acted in furtherance of the show cause notice and it is the grievance of the learned counsel that the reply to the show cause notice was not at all considered but the threat held out in the show cause notice was actually enforced and the bank guarantee which the petitioner had given was invoked by the second respondent. This necessitated the petitioner to bring about an amendment to the relief sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, they challenged the impugned order which now transformed itself to Letter No. CE/MM/SE/MMI/EEI/A1/F.PO.No.99/D.249/22 dated 09.11.2022 issued by the second respondent again, according to the petitioner is arbitrarily and in violation of the established principles of law.

3. The writ petitioner is a registered manufacturer of structural steel and reinforced steel products. They supply steel and reinforced steel products to Central and State government organizations including the State Electricity Boards and more particularly to the first and second respondents namely TANGECO.

4. In June 2020, the first and second respondents had floated an open e-tender for the supply of RS Joist 200 *100 mm of 5 Length to UDAY Schemes and routine works in EDCs. The petitioner had participated in the tender and was awarded the Rate Contract on

09.11.2020 for a period of 12 months.

5. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, had listed out various grievances as against the first and second respondents indicating that they had failed to honour their commitments under the contract. But, I would rather stress that the fresh agreement between the petitioner and the first and second respondents was the outcome of consensus between the two parties. They had agreed to abide by the terms of the contract. They had agreed to honour the terms of the contract. Since I am not entering into any detailed discussion as to the terms of the contract, I would primarily lay stress on the fact that once a contract comes into play, it would be extremely inappropriate for the Writ Court under Article 226 to either interpret the terms of the contract or thrust a new term on the parties. I would straight away dispose of the writ petition by stating that invocation of the terms of the performance guarantee given by the petitioner was only under the terms of the contract. If at all the petitioner has any grievance they should work his remedy as agreed by them and the respondents.

6. If there is any breach of the terms of the contract or any grievance arising out of the performance of any of the terms of the contract, the parties are bound by a specific clause which is termed as Jurisdiction for Legal Proceedings:

“ No suit or any proceedings in regard to any matter arising in any respect under this contract shall be instituted in any court save in the City Civil Court of Chennai or the Court of Small Causes at Chennai and it is agreed that no other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings even though part of the cause of action might arise within their jurisdiction. In case, any part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of any of the courts in Tamil Nadu and not in the courts of Chennai city then it is agreed to between parties that such suits or proceedings shall be instituted in a court within Tamil Nadu and no other courts outside Tamil Nadu shall have jurisdiction even though any part of the cause of action might arise within the jurisdiction of such courts. An undertaking in this regard as per Annexure -III enclosed should be furnished in a non-judicial Sta