Judgment · High Court

consequences. Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the Railway very fairly produced the original file dealing with the matter. I have perused the file, as well. From the communications on 3 record and the notings in file one does get an expression that Railway initially was restricting the source on the ground that permitting another source would create accounting complications as the best price was fixed with reference to RINL, Visakhapatnam, again it is clear that stocks of raw material from another source was unaccepted but what had happened thereafter is not clear. Lastly, it is clear that a decision was taken to permit purchase of raw material from source other than the RINL. But one thing is also apparent that the petitioner was for one reason or the other much delayed in his schedule or delivery. To what extent Railway was responsible for the delay or to what extent petitioner was prevented are questions which cannot conveniently be decided by this Court in these summary proceedings with certainty. Mr. Agrawal has pointed out that in the agreement there is an arbitration Clause for settling such disputes. In my view, it is proper that the parties refer the matters for settlement out side the Court by arbitration, which would be competent to examine the records in detail and come to some definite finding on basis of the records and other materials. The Arbitrator would be competent to deal with all questions that the petitioner may seek to raise within the scope of the arbitration Clause, if such arbitration is called for. This Court in view of the disputed questions of facts is unable to entertain this writ petition. It leaves it to the petitioner to seek remedy by way of arbitration or any other appropriate remedy that it may be advised. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an interim protection. In my view, the prayer cannot be accepted on 4 two grounds. Firstly, the Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act now is competent to grant interim reliefs and consequently once this Court finds it difficult to entertain the writ petition, it is not competent to grant an interim relief. The original file of the Railway is returned. The writ petition is thus not entertained, in view of the observations and directions as contained above and is dismissed as such. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)