K. A. PUJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS Court has passed the following order on 6. 3. 2009; "after having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the court hereby passes the following operative order :-"the present petition is dismissed. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. In view of the dismissal of the petition, civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of. " reasons for dismissal of the petition shall follow. " ( 2 ) THE reasons for dismissal of the petition are as under :- ( 3 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india requesting this Court for issuance of writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the constitution of India prohibiting the respondent authorities from giving delivery or further delivery of any part of the cargo of Indonesian Steam (Non-Coking) Coal discharged from the vessel M V Jag Ravi on 16. 10. 2008 and presently lying in their custody without receipt of delivery instructions from the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari directing the respondent authority to forthwith satisfy and transmit to this Court all records pertaining to the grant of permission to delivery of cargo discharged from M. V, Jag Ravi and presently lying inside Navlakhi Port so that the same may be quashed and conscionable justice be rendered to the parties. ( 4 ) THIS Court has passed an order on 25. 2. 2009 issuing notice to the respondent and granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 11 (C) on a condition that the undertaking would be filed by the petitioner No. 1 through its authorized representative before this Court stating therein that whatever be the port charges in respect of the cargo lying at Navlakhi port, shall be borne by the petitioner and shall be deposited with this Court within one week from the date of the communication by the Gujarat Maritime board to the petitioner. The Court has also granted permission to the respondent No. 3 to approach this Court for vacation of ad-interim relief. Pursuant to the above order, an undertaking was filed by mr. R. Nilakantan Iyer, Dy. Manager of the first petitioner. The Court has also granted permission to the respondent No. 3 to approach this Court for vacation of ad-interim relief. Pursuant to the above order, an undertaking was filed by mr. R. Nilakantan Iyer, Dy. Manager of the first petitioner. The respondent No. 3 has filed Civil Application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India praying for vacation of interim relief granted by this Court by an order dated 25. 2. 2009. The respondent No. 3 has also filed an affidavit-in-reply in the main petition. ( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner before this court is that, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition to challenge the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondent authorities of giving delivery of the cargo discharged from the vessel M V jag Ravi to the reservation No. 3 despite the petitioner's intimation of cancellation of the delivery note dated 15. 11. 2008 and repeated requests and/or instructions not to deliver any cargo without fresh delivery instructions. The petitioner is engaged in providing vessels for the carriage of goods by sea. At all material times and even now the petitioner is the owner of the vessel M v Jag Ravi. On 10. 9. 2008, the petitioner no. 1 entered into a Voyage Charter Party with one Visa Comtrade (Asia) Ltd. , whereby and whereunder the petitioner agreed to carry a consignment of indonesian Steam (Non-Coking) Coal from taboneo Anchorage, South Kalimantan, indonesia to Navlakhi Sea port, India. At the time of entering into the said Charter party with one Visa Comtrade (Asia) Ltd. , they had represented to the petitioner that it was purchasing a consignment of indonesian Steam (Non-Coking) coal from the Indonesian shippers for resale to an indian buyer. Pursuant to the Charter Party the said vessel duly loaded an aggregate quantity of 44,104 mt. Indonesian Steam (Non-Coking) Coal from Taboneo anchorage, South Kalimantan, Indonesia. On the instructions from the Charterer, the petitioner No. 1 duly issued five separate bills of lading for the cargo loaded on the said vessel. The particulars of the said bills of lading are as under:-Sr. No. B/no. Date place of issue quantity 1 o1a/bjm-IND/08 30. 9. 2008 banjarmasin j 0,000 MT 2 o1b/bjm-IND/08 30. 9. 2008 banjarmasin 10,000 MT 3 o1c/bjm-IND/08 30. 9. 2008 banjarmasin 10,000 MT 4 o1d/bjm-IND/08 30. 9. 2008 banjarmasin 10,000 MT 5 o1e/bjm-IND/08 30. 9. The particulars of the said bills of lading are as under:-Sr. No. B/no. Date place of issue quantity 1 o1a/bjm-IND/08 30. 9. 2008 banjarmasin j 0,000 MT 2 o1b/bjm-IND/08 30. 9. 2008 banjarmasin 10,000 MT 3 o1c/bjm-IND/08 30. 9. 2008 banjarmasin 10,000 MT 4 o1d/bjm-IND/08 30. 9. 2008 banjarmasin 10,000 MT 5 o1e/bjm-IND/08 30. 9. 2008 banjarmasin 4,104 MT ( 6 ) THE said vessel arrived at Navlakhi port on 12. 10. 2008 and duly discharged the entire cargo of 44,104 mt. On 16. 10. 2008. The discharged cargo was placed in the custody of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were to hold the same as bailees on behalf of the petitioners. ( 7 ) CLAUSE 11 of the Charterparty says that "in case of non-availability of Original b/ls at the discharge port owners to allow discharge of cargo against charterers LOI in owners' PNI club format. Fax copy of LOI to be acceptable. Copy of bills of lading to be attached with the LOI". By a letter dated 6th October, the said charterer called upon the petitioner to deliver the cargo to the respondent No. 3 without production of the original bills of lading in terms of clause 11 of the charterparty. The petitioner No. 1 was obliged to issue delivery instructions in favour of the respondent No. 3 and accordingly, the petitioner instructed their agent to issue a delivery order in favour of the respondent No. 3 on 14. 10. 2008. ( 8 ) IT is also the case of the petitioners that they were shocked and surprised to receive a letter from the advocates of the shippers on 12. 11. 2008 claiming therein that their clients were still holding the original bills of lading and the delivery of the cargo by the petitioner to the Indian receivers was wrong. The advocate further claimed that a sum of US $ 1,492,626. 12 was due and payable to the shippers from its contractual buyer. Immediately on receipt of this letter the petitioner caused inquires to be made from which they came to learn that respondent No. 3 had taken delivery of a quantity of approximately 7. 412,84 ml of the cargo and the balance of 36. 091. 160 mt remained within the port premises. By its letter of 15. 11. 2008 the petitioner No. 1 apprised the respondent no. 2 of the above facts. 412,84 ml of the cargo and the balance of 36. 091. 160 mt remained within the port premises. By its letter of 15. 11. 2008 the petitioner No. 1 apprised the respondent no. 2 of the above facts. The petitioner No. 1 duly informed the respondent No. 2 of the cancellation of the delivery order dated 14. 10. 2008 and called upon him not to deliver any further cargo to the respondent no. 3 without receiving fresh delivery instructions from the petitioner. Despite this fact, the respondent authorities continued to deliver cargo to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent authorities through their advocates on 19. 1. 2009. Despite receipt of this letter the respondent authorities have failed and/or neglected. to reply thereto. The respondent authorities continued to deliver cargo to the respondent No. 3 despite the repeated notices of the petitioner No. 1 to refrain from delivering any part of the cargo to any claimant without receipt of fresh delivery instructions from the petitioner No. 1. The dy. General Manager, of the petitioner No. 1 met the respondent No. 2 personally and apprised him of the matter. After the meeting, the petitioner No. 1 has issued a further letter dated 19. 2. 2009 calling upon the respondent authorities inter alia not to deliver any part of the cargo lying inside the port premises without the specific instructions of the petitioner No. 1 and to compensate the petitioner No. 1 for the cargo already wrongfully delivered by them. No reply was given by the respondent authorities. ( 9 ) IT is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities are storing the cargo discharged from the said vessel in their capacity as statutory bailees for and on behalf of the petitioner No. 1. The respondent authorities are obliged to act in terms of the instructions issued by the petitioner No. 1 from time to time. They are not entitled to deal with the cargo in any manner whatsoever without the express instructions of the petitioner No. 1. However, the respondent authorities continued to deliver the cargo to the respondent No. 3 in breach of their duty as a bailee. They are not entitled to deal with the cargo in any manner whatsoever without the express instructions of the petitioner No. 1. However, the respondent authorities continued to deliver the cargo to the respondent No. 3 in breach of their duty as a bailee. They are aware and were specifically made aware of the true and complete facts of the matter and the petitioner No. 1 would suffer irreparable loss if the respondent authorities delivered the cargo contrary to the instructions of the petitioner No. 1. ( 10 ) MR. A. Majmudar, learned Senior counsel appearing with Mr. R. J. Oza, for the petitioners has submitted that by their wrongful acts and conduct, the respondent authorities have already caused loss and damages to the petitioner being the value of the cargo wrongfully and illegally delivered by them to the respondent No. 3 despite cancellation of the delivery order dated 15. 11. 2008. The respondent authorities are, therefore, liable to compensate the petitioner for such loss and damages and the petitioner reserves their right to institute appropriate proceedings for recovery after quantifying its loss and damages. He has further submitted that the petitioners have come to know that the respondent authorities are still holding substantial quantity of the cargo and there is apprehension that they will also deliver the balance cargo in breach of the petitioner's instructions to the contrary. He has further submitted that respondent authorities are a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent authorities are creatures of statute and their powers are circumscribed by statute. The acts and conduct of the respondent authorities of delivering cargo to the respondent No. 3 in absence of delivery instructions from the petitioners and despite the petitioners specific instructions not to deliver any cargo is wholly in contravention of the provisions of the Gujarat Maritime board Act, 1981. He has further submitted that the acts and conduct of the respondent authorities are ex-facie arbitrary and illegal and dehors the provisions of law. The respondent authorities have acted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They have also deprived the petitioners of their valuable property in contravention of Article 300a of the constitution of India. He has further submitted that the acts and conduct of the respondent authorities are ex-facie arbitrary and illegal and dehors the provisions of law. The respondent authorities have acted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They have also deprived the petitioners of their valuable property in contravention of Article 300a of the constitution of India. The petitioner No. 2 carries on business through the instrumentality of the petitioner No. 1 and the act of the respondent authorities of delivering cargo to the respondent No. 3 has infringed the rights guaranteed to the petitioner No. 2 under Article 14 of the constitution of India. He has. therefore, submitted that the respondent authorities are bound to act in a fair and reasonable manner. The acts and conduct of the respondent authorities of releasing a part of the cargo to the respondent No. 3 despite the instructions of the petitioner No. 1 are wholly malafide. No reasonable person properly instructed and acting on materials on record could have allowed delivery of cargo to the respondent No. 3 after receipt of the letter dated 15. 11. 2008 issued by the petitioner No. 1. ( 11 ) MR. MAJMUDAR in support of his submissions has referred to and relied upon the passages from British Shipping Laws, carriage by Sea II, Chapter 16 by Raoul P. Colinvaux wherein, while discussing about the applicable principles with regard to the delivery under contract, it is observed that the shipowner must generally see that the goods are delivered to the person to whom he has contracted to deliver them. That is to say, as a rule, to the person named as consignee in the bill of lading, or to the assignee of the person who is empowered by the bill of lading to make an order or assignment of it. It is further observed that delivery to the consignee named in the bill of lading does not suffice to discharge the shipowner where the consignee does not hold the bill of lading. If the shipment was made without any bill of lading being taken, but with directions as to delivery, the shipowner must deliver in accordance with the engagement thus expressly or impliedly made. If no directions were given as to a consignee, he must deliver to the shipper, or to persons authorised by him to receive the goods at the destination. If the shipment was made without any bill of lading being taken, but with directions as to delivery, the shipowner must deliver in accordance with the engagement thus expressly or impliedly made. If no directions were given as to a consignee, he must deliver to the shipper, or to persons authorised by him to receive the goods at the destination. ( 12 ) MR. MAJMUDAR has further relied on the passages from British Shipping Laws -Carver on Bills of Lading, First Edition, 2001, wherein while discussing about "order bills", it is stated that an order bill is one which provides for delivery of the goods to be made to the order of a person named in the bill. Such bills are of two kinds. The first provides for delivery of the goods to a named-consignee or to his "order or assigns" ( or contains similar words importing transferability ). The second simply makes the goods deliverable "to order or assigns" (or, again, contains similar words of transferability) without naming a consignee. The first kind of "order bill" is said to be made out to the order of the consignee, for on the face of the bill it is the consignee who is entitled (if he does not wish the goods to be delivered to himself)to order the goods to be delivered to another person. In the case of an "order bill" of the second kind, no person is on the face of the bill entitled to give such orders and it is the shipper who is entitled to give orders to the carrier with respect to the person to whom or to whose order the goods are to be delivered; such bills are therefore said to be made out to the order of the shipper. In either case, the order is given by transferring the bill to the person to whom, or to whose order, the goods are to be delivered. It is further stated that delivery of goods covered by a bearer or by an order bill must be made only against presentation of the bill. The carrier is therefore liable to the person lawfully in possession of such a bill if he wrongly delivers the goods to anyone else. ( 13 ) MR. It is further stated that delivery of goods covered by a bearer or by an order bill must be made only against presentation of the bill. The carrier is therefore liable to the person lawfully in possession of such a bill if he wrongly delivers the goods to anyone else. ( 13 ) MR. MAJMUDAR, in support of his submission that the petition is filed seeking writ of prohibition against Gujarat Maritime board being a statutory body and hence such petition is maintainable, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. East India Commercial co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, reported in air 1962 SC 1893 , wherein it is held that, the first question is whether the petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition is maintainable in the circumstances of the case. A writ of prohibition is an order directing to an inferior Tribunal forbidding from continuing with a proceeding therein on the ground that the proceeding is without or excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the laws of the land, statutory or otherwise. ( 14 ) MR. MAJMUDAR further relied on the decision of Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) in the case of Barclays bank Ltd. v. Commissioners of Customs and excise, reported in (1963) Vol. 1 Lloyd's report, 81 wherein it is held that so long as the contract is not discharged, the bill of lading remains a document of title by endorsement and delivery of which the rights of property in the goods can be transferred. It is clear law that where a bill of lading or order is issued in respect of the contract of carriage by sea, the shipowner is not bound to surrender possession of the goods to any person whether named as consignee or not, except on production of the bill of lading. ( 15 ) MR. MAJMUDAR in support of his submission that even after discharge of the cargo from the ship, the Board authorities are answerable to the petitioner, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of K. P. V. Sheik Mohamed rowther and Co. ( 15 ) MR. MAJMUDAR in support of his submission that even after discharge of the cargo from the ship, the Board authorities are answerable to the petitioner, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of K. P. V. Sheik Mohamed rowther and Co. reported in 1962 (2) SCR 915, wherein it is held that, (1) The object behind the scale 'e' rates was to expedite the discharge of the cargo at the quay and thus to enable a quantity of cargo to be discharged quickly. The services rendered by the Port Trust were therefore services to the ship and, consequently, charges for them could be validity realised from the steamer agents. (2) The Madras Port Trust Act. 1905, did not contain any provision which would constitute the Port Trust an agent of the consignee for the purpose of taking delivery of the goods and the expression "receiving" in cl. (b) of Sub. S. (l) of S. 39 of the Act did not mean receiving the goods on behalf of the consignee. (3) Under sections 39 and 40 the Port Trust took charge of the goods on behalf of the ship-owner and not on behalf of the consignee, and whatever services it performed at the time of the landing of the goods or on their removal thereafter, were services rendered to the ship. ( 16 ) ON service of the notice, the respondent No. 3 filed its appearance through Mr. Abhishek M. Mehta, learned counsel and filed an affidavit-in-reply. Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Abhishek M. Mehta, learned counsel, for respondent No. 3 have raised preliminary objections as regards maintainability of the petition. He has submitted that the subject petition is misconceived and without merits in law or on facts and, therefore, the same is not maintainable. He has further submitted that the petition is based on inaccurate and incorrect statements and allegations or inaccurate and incomplete details which preset a distorted or incomplete version of facts and, therefore also, the subject petition is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained by this Court. The petition is also not maintainable inasmuch as the same involves diverse disputed issues and questions on facts. The petition is also not maintainable inasmuch as the same involves diverse disputed issues and questions on facts. No legal right, much less any fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated and the petitioners have preferred the present petition raising such disputes, which are purely contractual and/ or having come into existence on account of purely commercial contract on principal to principal basis and hence the subject matter of the petition being in the realm of contract, is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained. In order to substantiate this contention Mr. Gupta relied on the ratio of the decision rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of pinipri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors v. Gayatri Construction Company and Anr, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172 . ( 17 ) WITHOUT prejudice to any other contentions and objections of respondent including the objections with regard to the maintainability of the petition. Mr. Gupta submitted that the petitioner does not have any cause of action and/or any justification for preferring any action, including present petition, in law against the respondent. He has further submitted that the petitioner does not have any locus in respect to the disputes that have been raised and also the reliefs that have been claimed in the present petition inasmuch as the disputes have been raised indirectly and as a proxy for a third party i. e. Harkat Utamma Mulia Mandiri, who are supposedly the shippers, who claim to be in possession of the original bills of lading and it is at the behest of the said third party the petitioner has sought to raise the disputes, arising out of commercial transactions between the parties. He has further submitted that the said Harkat utamma Mulia Mandiri has not proceeded against Visa Contrade or against the respondent by taking recourse to any legal remedy but it is the petitioner, who has approached this Court without having any locus standi in connection with the issues. When the petitioner has no locus in the present set of facts qua the respondent, it is inevitable that the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 18 ) MR. GUPTA has further submitted that no cause of action of whatsoever nature has arisen and the petitioner is not justified in approaching this Court under the writ jurisdiction. When the petitioner has no locus in the present set of facts qua the respondent, it is inevitable that the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 18 ) MR. GUPTA has further submitted that no cause of action of whatsoever nature has arisen and the petitioner is not justified in approaching this Court under the writ jurisdiction. In fact, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner in the petition is ill founded as a Letter of Indemnity dated 6. 10. 2008 was executed by the respondent in favour of Visa Comtrade who in turn has executed a Letter of Indemnity dated 6. 10. 2008 in favour of the petitioner inter alia providing for delivery of cargo to the respondent without the production of original bills of lading. Therefore, the very basis for the petitioner to have preferred the present petition is mere apprehension and there being no cause of action having arisen, the present petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be dismissed. ( 19 ) MR. GUPTA has further submitted that full freight alongwilh demurrage/dispatch as applicable has been paid by Visa comtrade to the petitioner. As such the petitioner had no due either on Visa comtrade or any one else. He has further submitted that the present petition even otherwise suffers from mis-joinder of parties inasmuch as the entire petition discloses issues/dispute arising out of and pertain ing to a Charter party / Agreement between the petitioner and one Visa comtrade (Asia) Ltd. , in connection with a particular consignment of Indonesian Coal to be carried by the petitioners, as owners of the vessel, from Taboneo, South kalimantan, Indonesia to Navlakhi Port in gujarat. The issues that have been raised by the petitioner in the captioned petition arise out of and are against Visa Comtrade (Asia)Ltd. who have not been made party respondent to the present petition and on this court alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 20 ) MR. GUPTA further submitted that in view of the disputes arising out of the charter party agreement dated 10. 9. 2008 between the petitioner and Visa Comtrade (Asia) Ltd. , based in Hong Kong, as per the knowledge of the respondent, the petitioner has already invoked and exercised its right in law and has approached the United States district Court Southern District of New york raising a claim of S 2,500,000. 9. 2008 between the petitioner and Visa Comtrade (Asia) Ltd. , based in Hong Kong, as per the knowledge of the respondent, the petitioner has already invoked and exercised its right in law and has approached the United States district Court Southern District of New york raising a claim of S 2,500,000. 00 against Visa Comtrade (Asia) and has also obtained a Garnishee / attachment order dated 10. 2. 2009 under Rule B of the supplemental Rules for certain admiralty and maritime claims of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure. He has, therefore, submitted that on these facts, the petition deserves to be dismissed and not maintainable against the respondents. He has further submitted that the petition does not disclose existence of any legal right in favour of the petitioner and in absence of such a legal right, the present petition deserves to be dismissed in limini without grant of any relief whatsoever. The petition is, in fact, a proxy litigation by the petitioner for and on behalf of the shipper based on allegations and 'actions which are totally wrong, illegal and unconstitutional. ( 21 ) MR. GUPTA has further submitted that as per the say of the petitioner the dispute has arisen in view of the letter dated 12. 11. 2008 of the advocate of the shipper, harkat Utamma Mulia Mandiri claiming that their clients holding the original bill of lading and that the delivery of the cargo to the respondent was wrong and further claiming a sum of US $ 1,492,626. 12 as being due and payable to the shippers from its contractual buyers. Upon a bare perusal of the letter dated 12. 11. 2008, it is apparent that the dispute pertains to alleged breach of contract of carnage, which involves various parties, who are not before this Court and it is in furtherance to the above dispute that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking reliefs against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As far as the respondent No. 3 is concerned, even otherwise, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 and as far as the respondent No. 1 and 2 are concerned, there is no statutory contract between the petitioner and the said respondent Nos. l and 2 which would entitle the petitioner to any relief under the writ jurisdiction of this court. ( 22 ) MR. l and 2 which would entitle the petitioner to any relief under the writ jurisdiction of this court. ( 22 ) MR. GUPTA has further submitted that as far as the consignment of coal and delivery thereof is concerned, it is submitted that the same was to be delivered at navlakhi Port, in Gujarat, to the respondent no. 3 by the petitioner in terms of the charter Party agreement between the petitioner and Visa Comtrade (Asia) and the same was in terms of the purchase order no. BCL/cpc/coal/02/08-09/imp-04 dated 22. 8. 2008 and subsequent amendment placed on Visa Comtrade by the respondent. On arrival of the said cargo / consignment on 12. 10. 2008 - 16. 10. 2008 and on fulfilling the formalities and on payment of the customs duty and upon issuance of the delivery order dated 14. 10. 2008 by the petitioner, the respondent started lifting the coal and out of the total quantity of 44,104 mt quantity of coal forming part of the consignment, the respondent lifted 20000 mt coal on various occasions and only 24104 MT of coal being the balance quantity is lying at the port premises, for which the bill of entry has been filed and is under assessment with the customs authorities and which could not be lifted in view of the order dated 25. 2. 2009, granting ad-interim relief to the petitioner. ( 23 ) MR. GUPTA has further submitted that the respondent has acted in accordance with the terms of the purchase order 22. 8. 2008 and subsequent amendment dated 24. 9. 2008 placed on Visa Comtrade and lifted and consignment of coal in terms of the said orders and after making due payment of the : customs duties etc, and there is no dispute between the respondent and Visa Comtrade which is evident from the certificate issued by Visa Comtrade in favour of respondent. As the cargo supplied was found to be below the rejection limit as per the purchase order and totally different from the results submitted by the shipper/their nominated inspection agency, the price of cargo / coal was renegotiated with Visa Comtrade at a mutually agreed price of 86 USD per MT instead of USD 154. 34 per MT. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in para 11 of the petition. 34 per MT. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in para 11 of the petition. The petitioners have no case much less prima facie case nor balance of convenience lies in his favour. Any further delay would result in irreparable loss and injury to the respondent and also endanger the cargo. He has, therefore, submitted that the petition is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained and the same should be dismissed and ad-interim relief granted earlier should be vacated. ( 24 ) IN support of his submission that the present petition is not maintainable, mr. Gupta relied on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. and others v. Bridge and Roof company (India) Ltd. , reported in (1996) 6 scc 22 wherein it is held that the contract between the parties is a contract in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory contract. It is governed by the provisions of the Contract Act or, may be, also by certain provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Any dispute relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such Contract cannot be agitated, and could not have been agitated, in a writ petition. That is a matter either for arbitration as provided by the contract or for Civil Court, as the case may be. ( 25 ) MR. GUPTA further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal corporation and others v. Gayatri construction Company and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172 wherein it is held that in matters relating to maintainability of writ petitions in contractual matters there are a catena of decisions dealing with the issue. After referring to various judgments, the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the high Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition. In this case there was an agreement providing for in house remedy for settlement of dispute. Even after noticing the same the Bombay High Court has entertained the writ petition and while setting aside the order of the Bombay High court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the respondent-writ petitioners should seek such remedy, as was available in law. In this case there was an agreement providing for in house remedy for settlement of dispute. Even after noticing the same the Bombay High Court has entertained the writ petition and while setting aside the order of the Bombay High court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the respondent-writ petitioners should seek such remedy, as was available in law. ( 26 ) HAVING heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and having considered their rival submissions, the court is of the view that the subject matter of this petition is in the realm of contract and this being private dispute between the petitioner and Visa Comtrade (Asia) Ltd. , with whom the petitioner had entered into a charter party Agreement and without joining that party as respondent in this petition the petitioner has made an attempt to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India, simply of the basis of joining Gujarat Maritime Board, a statutory board as a party, who according to the petitioner is acting as a bailee. Even if a statutory Board is acting as bailee, the Court is not supposed to exercise its writ jurisdiction against such bailee. If the petitioner has any grievance against Visa comtrade (Asia) Ltd. , or any other person, the petitioner may file Suit after joining proper and necessary parties for appropriate relief before the Competent Civil Court. Moreover, the petitioner has no privity of contract with the respondent No. 3 and by virtue of claiming the relief against the respondent Nos. I and 2, the real relief is prayed for against the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has discharged his part of obligation and after making payment of the cargo purchased by him, he is legitimately expecting the delivery of cargo which is sought to be prevented by the petitioner by claiming relief against Gujarat Maritime board. This Court is not concerned with the issue as to whether the petitioner has any legitimate claim against Visa Comtrade (Asia) Ltd. , or any other person nor it is necessary for this Court to express any opinion on such issue. The Court, however, cannot and should not permit the petitioner to use the forum of this Court by joining gujarat Maritime Board as a party to resolve its disputes against some third parties, who are not before the Court. The Court, however, cannot and should not permit the petitioner to use the forum of this Court by joining gujarat Maritime Board as a party to resolve its disputes against some third parties, who are not before the Court. ( 27 ) APART from the above fact, the petitioner has also approached the United states' District Court, Southern District of new York raising a claim of US $ 25 lacs against Visa Comtrade (Asia) Ltd. , and has also obtained a Garnishee / attachment order dated 10. 2. 2009 under Rule B of the supplemental Rules for certain admiralty and maritime claims of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure. Since the petitioners have already availed of an alternative efficacious remedy against Visa Comtrade (Asia) Ltd. . the present petition cannot be entertained even on this count. In absence of any material whatsoever establishing any legal right of the petitioner against the respondent no. 3 the Court is not convinced with the submissions of Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and hence the petition is dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. ( 28 ) IN view of the dismissal of petition, civil application No. 2450 of 2009 filed by the respondent No. 3 for vacation of the interim relief, no longer survives and it is accordingly disposed off. ( 29 ) IT is open for the respondent No. 1 gujarat Maritime Board to claim Port charges, if any, against the petitioners pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 25. 2. 2009 and in view of the undertaking filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1. (HCB) (Petition is dismissed)