Judgment : The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.K.Jain, Actg.C.J.: 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 4. 2000 granting stay of further proceedings dated 22. 2000 issued by the appellant, passed by a learned single Judge in W.M.P.No.5779 of 2000 and W.P.No.3750 of 2000. 2. Learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr.K.Chandru submits that as there is a breach of agreement dated 30.10.1986 between the appellant and the respondent and the learned single Judge has erred in granting stay more particularly when the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the contract being a non-statutory contract and suit is the only remedy. Learned senior counsel submits that admittedly the sample was found adulterated and not within the permissible limits. Learned senior counsel also submitted that while holding the writ petition maintainable, the learned single Judge has observed that the order is not a speaking order and the Marketing Discipline Guidelines have not been followed. It is submitted that allowing such persons to continue will also be against the interest of general public. He also submits that in an identical Division Bench decision in Union of India and others v. Sri Gayathri Agencies and others, W.A.Nos.521 to 527 of 2000, etc. dated 17. 2000, this Court has vacated the stay granted earlier and disposed of the writ appeals accordingly. 3. To this learned senior counsel for the respondent Mr.R.Krishnamurthy submits that the decision in the above referred to writ appeal is not applicable as admittedly in that case, there was an arbitration clause, the Division Bench had held that the writ petition is not maintainable and in this case there was no arbitration clause. Learned senior counsel also submitted there is a clear violation of the Chapter 5(VI) of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines by not sending the sample collected for test within 10 days of the drawal of the sample. He submits that the sample was collected on 12. 1999, sent for test on 12. 1999 and the test was conducted on 212. 1999 after 18 days. He submits that the sample was collected on 12. 1999, sent for test on 12. 1999 and the test was conducted on 212. 1999 after 18 days. Learned senior counsel further submitted that as per Chapter 6(1)(d) of the Guidelines, the termination order can be passed only for the offence committed in the second instance, that in case of the first instance, there is a provision for suspension of sales for 45 days and fine and only for the second offence, it can be terminated and therefore, the learned single Judge was right in granting the stay of the termination order. Learned senior counsel relied upon the decision in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India , (1999)6 S.C.C. 667 . 4. In the rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998, (hereinafter referred to as the Order) only says that it should be sent within 10 days and not as found by the learned single Judge and that as per Chapter 5(VI) of the Guidelines, all samples should be sent and tested within 10 days to any laboratories mentioned in Schedule III. Admittedly in the test result, it was found that Octane No. is 81 as against 87. As it was below the permissible limit, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. He also submits that the density can be measured by using the equipments and the explanation that the boy working with the respondent, has wrongly noted the reading cannot be accepted at this stage. All these things being questions of facts, one has to establish them and can only be decided in the proper forum. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Division Bench decision of this Court in Union of India and others v. Sri Gayathri Agencies and others, W.A.Nos.521 to 527 of 2000, etc. dated 17. 2000, is fully applicable to the facts of this case. 5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials and case law. As the law is well settled, it is not necessary to discuss each case law. It is settled that a non-statutory contracts cannot be enforced exercising the writ jurisdiction. dated 17. 2000, is fully applicable to the facts of this case. 5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials and case law. As the law is well settled, it is not necessary to discuss each case law. It is settled that a non-statutory contracts cannot be enforced exercising the writ jurisdiction. The proper remedy for the parties is to enforce the contractual obligations as per the agreement in the civil court. It is also settled that if the order is mala fide or passed arbitrarily and passed while enforcing a public duty by a public body, the same can be challenged in this Court. For seeking the extraordinary remedy, one has to show that it comes within the touchstone of Art.14 of the Constitution. But each facts depends on the facts of the given case. It is also settled that generally this Court does not interfere with the interim orders as the matter is still pending and no finality has been reached. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent is that there is arbitrariness in not sending and test the sample within 10 days as per the guidelines and the agreement was terminated for the offence committed in the first instance, which is in violation of the guidelines and therefore the writ petition is maintainable. No doubt the Guidelines/Notification can supplement the order or the Rules, but at the same time, the Guidelines cannot override and supercede the statutory Rule or Order. On consideration, we find that the circumstances prevailing before the learned single Judge are not tenable and the argument of the writ petitioner is not acceptable. That apart, no mala fide has been shown. The Division Bench of this Court referred to above, is also fully applicable to the facts of this case for the reasons stated above. 6. It has seen that the learned single Judge has not considered the test conducted and the variation in R.O.N. in the first sample taken and the failure on the part of the writ petitioner to maintain the density as well as the R.O.N. in the second instance, holding that they can be decided in the final hearing of the writ petition when this needs investigation and evidence. Under these circumstances, without going into the merits, it will not be appropriate to consider all these questions of facts as they have to be established in a competent Court of Law. In view of this, we find no special reason for the learned single Judge to grant interim order. Therefore, we interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and the same is set aside. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is allowed. C.M.P.No.5196 of 2000 is closed.