JUDGMENT - H. SURESH, J.:---This is a suit filed by the Food Corporation of India, a Corporation constituted under the Food Corporation Act, 1964 and functioning under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, as against the Trustees of the Port of Bombay, a Corporate Body, constituted under the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1879, and controlled by the Ministry of Surface Transport, for the purpose of recovering a sum of Rs. 1,98,923.20 P, as and by way of damages in respect of certain cargo which was kept in the shed of the Bombay Port Trust, which, according to the plaintiffs, was destroyed or lost, etc. 2. When this suit appeared on my board during the last week, I pointed out to the two Advocates that this appear to be a matter between the two Corporation belonging to the Government and controlled and governed by the two Ministries and that, therefore, they should immediately name the responsible officers from each side who would sit across the table and put an end to this litigation. The matter was adjourned to today. 3. However, the Advocates inform me today that it is not possible for them to name such officers on either side. 4. This being a dispute, between two Corporations of the government, there should be no litigation between them. Fortunately Mr.Govilkar has been able to trace out a Government Resolution in this behalf, which says how disputes should be settled between one Government and another and between one government Department and a Public Enterprise and between one Public Enterprise and another. The relevant portion of the said Circular is as follows: "No. 53/3/1/75-OF Government of India (Bharat Sarkar) Cabinet Secretariat (Mantrimandal Sachivalaya), Department of Cabinet Affairs (Mantrimandal Karya Vibhag) New, Delhi, 19 December, 1975 28 Agrahayana 1897. Office Memorandum Subject : Settlement of disputes between one Government Department and another and one Government Department and a public enterprise and one public enterprise and another. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department O.M. No. 53/1/1/CF-70 dated 25th August, 1970 on the above subject and to say that the Public Accounts Committee has had occasion to observe as follows in its 154th Report (1974.75):--- "The committee cannot understand why it has not been possible to resolve a dispute between two Government organisations by mutual consultation. Instead the parties have had to resort to litigation, thus incurring avoidable expenditure. Instead the parties have had to resort to litigation, thus incurring avoidable expenditure. The Committee desire that the existing instructions for settlement of disputes between Government Departments and Public Sector Undertakings should be reviewed thoroughly and a suitable machinery evolved for the resolution of inter-departmental and inter-Governmental disputes. The Committee suggest that this recommendation may be brought to the notice of the Cabinet Secretariat." 2. The instructions contained in the aforementioned Office Memorandum have accordingly been reviewed. The orders of the Cabinet have also been obtained. The directions given are as follows:--- (i) In so far as disputes between one Government Department and another are concerned, there can be no question of taking recourse to litigation or arbitration in seeking settlement of points at issue. If a discussion at the level of Ministers concerned does not result in agreement the problem can always be taken to the Cabinet for final decision. (ii) Unresolved disputes between a Government Department and public sector enterprise and between one public sector enterprise and another would ordinarily fall in either of the two following categories:- (a) those relating to statutory matters; and (b) those relating to commercial or other agreements. Regardless of the type of dispute, It has been decided that all disputes should be resolved amicably by natural consultation or through the good offices of empowered agencies of the Government or through arbitration and recourse to litigation should be eliminated. (iii) Where arbitration is decided upon, the arbitrator will be a serving law officer of the rank of Joint Secretary selected from a panel of names proposed by the Law Ministry. No lawyer should ordinarily be appointed by either party to argue the case. In complicated cases, where the arbitrator himself considers that outside assistance is necessary for elucidation of knotty legal points, Government Standing Counsels may be engaged for this limited purpose on lump sum payment. There should be no appeal in a Court of Law against the decision of the arbitrator which should be accepted as final. A directive may be issued to this effect to all public sector institutions (including banks and Insurance companies as also any other Company in which Government has a Majority share holding). There should be no appeal in a Court of Law against the decision of the arbitrator which should be accepted as final. A directive may be issued to this effect to all public sector institutions (including banks and Insurance companies as also any other Company in which Government has a Majority share holding). Whenever the award of the arbitrator discloses a patent error or if it be challenged for any other reasons mentioned in clauses (16) and (30) of the Arbitration Act, reference may be made to the Secretary, Ministry of Law for further consideration. Sd/- (K. Ramiah) for Cabinet Secretary. 5. Therefore, the principle which the above Government Circular enunciates is that there should be no litigation between Government Departments or between one Public Enterprise and another. Even if an arbitration is decided, according to the Circular, there should be no appeal to the Court of law, inasmuch as the decision of the arbitrator should be accepted as final. The idea is that under no circumstances, such dispute should came to Court. If the two Departments cannot agree and the two Ministries cannot solve the dispute, the Circular mentions that the matter should be brought to the notice of the Cabinet Secretary and that ultimately a decision will be taken by the Cabinet itself. 6. In fact, I am half inclined to have the suit dismissed on the basis of this Circular as the plaintiffs could not have instituted this litigation at all. The litigation has been filed only for the benefit of the legal fraternity and in any event plainly contrary to the above Government Circular. However, as a matter of abundant caution and with a view to obviate any technical plea, I consider that the proper thing would be to adjourn the matter sine die and give directions to have the suit placed on board only after the two Ministries resolve the dispute. They are at liberty to move this Court to have the suit withdrawn with the necessary fix order for refund of the institution fees. 7. I, therefore, pass the following order : The suit is adjourned sine die. Liberty to the plaintiffs to apply for withdrawal of the suit after the two Ministries of Food and Agriculture and the Surface Transport resolve the suit dispute. Plaintiffs will be at liberty to apply for order for refund of the institution fees. Order accordingly. -----