JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, CJ. The writ petitions relate to the dispute between the writ petitioners, who are contractors and Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short “BCCL”) in respect of reimbursement of Service Tax as per Clause 11(vii) of Contract Agreement and Clause 13 of the Work Order. In the writ petitions, the petitioners seek for a direction for quashing of the Corrigendum/Amendment dated 2.3.2012 and also letter dated 4.1.2013 and also seek for a direction that the reimbursement of Service Tax has to be done by the service receipt, irrespective of any adjustment availed by way of CENVAT credit by the petitioners/contractors. Since common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners are engaged in providing services of “Hiring of HEMM (Heavy Earth-Moving Machinery) for removal of Over Burden, Extraction and Transportation of Coal”. The respondent-BCCL is a Public Limited Company, as Public Sector Undertaking and engaged in mining of coal and other mining activities. The BCCL floated various Notices inviting Tender (in short, “NIT”) from time to time for removal of Over Burden, Extraction and Transportation of coal from various mines of the company within the district of Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioners participated in these NITs and their bids were accepted. Accordingly, the work order was given to the petitioners for the said work on different rates fixed with respect to different areas of operation. The petitioners were awarded different works on different dates in 2009 in various mines/various areas of Respondent-company/BCCL. The details of the work order/contract agreement are as under: Case No. Name of Company Name of work Work amount W.P.T. No. 254 of 2013 M/s Dhansar Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Nit No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2008/1107 dt. 17-12-2008 Rs. 253,56,43,140/- W.P.T. No. 257 of 2013 M/s Avinash Transport Nit No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2009/733 dt. 08-06-2009 Rs. 161,13,52,070/- W.P.T. No. 262 of 2013 M/s BKB Transport Pvt. Ltd. NIT No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/1034 dt.26-11-2008 Rs. 42,71,93,600/- W.P.T. No. 859 of 2013 M/s Sadbhav Engg. Ltd. NIT No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2011/1043 dt. 25-10-2011 Rs. 287,75,82,720/- W.P.T. No. 860 of 2013 M/s VIN-Balaji-JTT(JV) NIT No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2010/1079 dt. 23-07-2010 Rs. 55,30,93,200/- W.P.T. No. 906 of 2013 M/s Calcutta Industrial Supply Corporation NIT No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2010/1071 dt. 21-07-2010 Rs. 65,40,85,000/- W.P.T. No. 2701 of 2013 M/s Dhanbad Engineering & Mining Organization J.V. NIT NO. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2009/996 dt. 22-07-2009 Rs. Ltd. NIT No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2011/1043 dt. 25-10-2011 Rs. 287,75,82,720/- W.P.T. No. 860 of 2013 M/s VIN-Balaji-JTT(JV) NIT No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2010/1079 dt. 23-07-2010 Rs. 55,30,93,200/- W.P.T. No. 906 of 2013 M/s Calcutta Industrial Supply Corporation NIT No. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2010/1071 dt. 21-07-2010 Rs. 65,40,85,000/- W.P.T. No. 2701 of 2013 M/s Dhanbad Engineering & Mining Organization J.V. NIT NO. BCCL/GM(CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2009/996 dt. 22-07-2009 Rs. 31,58,82,000/- Some of them had already been concluded by the petitioners whereas some of them are still in operation. 3. Pursuant to the work orders given to the petitioners, the works are executed by the petitioners. As and when bills/invoices were raised, the petitioners were receiving the payments by Respondent-company/BCCL towards works executed and the Service Tax was later reimbursed by the Respondent-company after claim for such reimbursement was lodged by the petitioner-contractor. Contract Agreement contains Clause 11(vii) in terms of which the Service Tax will be reimbursed by BCCL to the petitioners/contractors. 4. The case of the petitioners/contractors is that as and when the bills/invoices were raised, the petitioners were receiving the payments and the Service Tax was later reimbursed by the BCCL after a claim for such reimbursement was lodged by the petitioners. The Functional Directors (FDs) of BCCL have approved the Amendment/Corrigendum in respect of the Service Tax reimbursement clause in the NIT for different tenders. As per the Corrigendum/Amendment, to have clarity in the system Service Tax will be reimbursed only to the extent that the contractor makes payment by cash or cash remittance by e-payment. In terms of the clause (4) of the said Amendment/Corrigendum, it was declared that only to the extent of cash remittance “Service Tax reimbursement will be made to the contractor for net Service Tax payment (calculated Service Tax on the value of the work less paid through CENVAT).” The said Corrigendum/Amendment dated 2.03.2012 was communicated to all concerned by letter dated 2.03.2012 and on the basis of said Amendment/Corrigendum the respondent-BCCL withheld payments to the contractor/petitioner. On 13.3.2012 the petitioner made a request to the BCCL to release their withheld running bills/invoices along with Service Tax amount. In response to the said letter, respondent-BCCL sent a letter dated 16.3.2012 annexing therewith a copy of the aforesaid Corrigendum/Amendment dated 2.3.2012. On 13.3.2012 the petitioner made a request to the BCCL to release their withheld running bills/invoices along with Service Tax amount. In response to the said letter, respondent-BCCL sent a letter dated 16.3.2012 annexing therewith a copy of the aforesaid Corrigendum/Amendment dated 2.3.2012. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the said Corrigendum/Amendment dated 2.3.2012 and also the said letter dated 16.3.2012, the petitioner (M/s Dhansar Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd) filed a writ petition, being W.P.(T) No. 1548 of 2012. However, during pendency of the writ petition, by letter dated 18.4.2012, BCCL intimated to all concerned that the said Corrigendum/Amendment dated 2.3.2012 and said letter dated 16.3.2012 were kept in abeyance vide decision dated 31.3.2012 taken by Functional Directors of the BCCL. In view of the same, the Court vide order dated 2.5.2012 dismissed the said writ petition with a liberty to file fresh petition, if occasion arises. 5. By communication dated 4.1.2013, the petitioners were informed that the decision of Functional Directors of BCCL dated 31.3.2012 was revoked with immediate effect and accordingly notice of recovery of reimbursement of the Service Tax already made of the tax paid through CENVAT and stoppage of further reimbursement was issued. The petitioners were served with the impugned decision dated 4.1.2013 vide letter dated 5.1.2013 by BCCL informing the decision to stop reimbursement of Service Tax paid through CENVAT and also informing about recovery of the reimbursement already made to the petitioner of the amounts of service tax paid by way of CENVAT Credit. 6. Challenging the Corrigendum/Amendment dated 2.3.2012, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions contending, inter alia, that BCCL cannot unilaterally amend the work order and by denying payment to the extent it relates to CENVAT Credit availed by the petitioners and said unilateral decision is arbitrary and the impugned communications are required to be quashed. 7. The respondent-BCCL filed counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that reimbursement of Service Tax is not governed by provisions as contained in the Finance Act, 1994 or Rules framed thereunder, that is, the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 but by the terms and conditions of the contract. It is further contended that coal has become excisable goods since March, 2001 and accordingly, the BCCL has been availing CENVAT Credit on the amount of Service Tax paid/reimbursed on services taken and Central Excise Duty paid at the purchase of consumables, plants and machinery. It is further contended that coal has become excisable goods since March, 2001 and accordingly, the BCCL has been availing CENVAT Credit on the amount of Service Tax paid/reimbursed on services taken and Central Excise Duty paid at the purchase of consumables, plants and machinery. The excise duty involved in the purchase of equipments, spare etc. required for the work is included in the rate/price quoted by the contractor and thus, the payable excise duty is being paid to the contractor by BCCL through its bills against the executed quantity of the work. Hence, as per the terms of the contract agreement, the contractor should be reimbursed the Service Tax only for the payment made by him for the Service Tax through cash, cheque or e-payment and not through CENVAT Credit. Accordingly, as approved by the Functional Directors of the company by way of corrigendum, the modification was made in all the contracts, present and future, to the extent that Service Tax reimbursement will be made to the contractor for net Service Tax payment (calculated Service Tax on the value of the work less paid through CENVAT). According to the respondent-BCCL, the reimbursement of the Service Tax to the service provider would be governed by the contractual terms between the service provider/petitioner and the service recipient and not as per the provisions contained in Finance Act, 1994 and CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and BCCL is fully justified in deciding to recover the same from the contractor. 8. We have heard Mr. B. Poddar, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner along with instructing counsel Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari and also heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL. 9. The impugned Corrigendum/Amendment is challenged mainly on the following grounds: (i) BCCL entered into a contract mentioning therein Clause 11(vii) that Service Tax will be reimbursed by BCCL to the petitioner-contractor and the same cannot be unilaterally altered, restricting reimbursement of Service Tax amount paid only in cash or by cheque or through e-payment and such unilateral alteration of the terms of the contract is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. (ii) General terms and conditions of the contract/tender document does not restrict reimbursement of Service Tax only to the net amount payable directly through cash or cheque or through e-payment. (ii) General terms and conditions of the contract/tender document does not restrict reimbursement of Service Tax only to the net amount payable directly through cash or cheque or through e-payment. (iii) Averments in para (11) of the counter alleging payment of excise duty on the input materials/ machineries and the alleged double payment is baseless. (iv) Even though the dispute pertains to the terms of the contract, in view of the arbitrary action of the public sector undertaking-BCCL in unilaterally altering the terms of the contract, the impugned Corrigendum/Amendment is liable to be quashed by the writ Court. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta submitted that when work order was given to the petitioners in the year 2009, coal was not included as excisable goods and only from March, 2011, the coal has become excisable goods and since then BCCL is claiming CENVAT Credit on the amount of Service Tax paid/reimbursement on service taken. Drawing attention of the Court to Clause 13 of the work order and 11(vii) of the Contract agreement, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that reimbursement of service tax should be read together with Clause 11(vii) of the general terms and conditions of the contract/tender document and as per which the contractors are to be reimbursed by BCCL on production of documentary evidence having made such payment of Service Tax directly through cash or cheque or e-payment. Learned counsel further submitted that no reimbursement of Service Tax is legally admissible against the payment claimed through CENVAT Credit. It was further submitted that Clause 11(vii) stipulates that all duties, taxes and levies are included in the quoted rate of the contractor and thus no reimbursement of service tax is admissible, if paid through CENVAT Credit as in that case, it will become a case of double payment to the contractor and hence BCCL was fully justified in issuing the Corrigendum/Amendment and also justified in ordering to recover the amount paid. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 12. The respondent-BCCL entered into agreements with the petitioners/contractors for execution of work of Hiring of HEMM for removal of OB, extraction and transportation of coal with fire fighting from various Section/Areas of BCCL. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 12. The respondent-BCCL entered into agreements with the petitioners/contractors for execution of work of Hiring of HEMM for removal of OB, extraction and transportation of coal with fire fighting from various Section/Areas of BCCL. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, if Service Tax is legally payable by the Tenderer in relation to the contract, the same is to be reimbursed by BCCL on production of documentary evidence having made such payment. Reimbursement of the service tax to the writ petitioners/service providers are governed by the terms and conditions of the contract. In terms of Clause 11(vii), the petitioners are eligible for reimbursement of the Service Tax legally payable by them. 13. The relevant Clause 11(vii) of the contract agreement and Clause 13 of the work order reads as under: “Clause 11(vii) of the Contract Agreement: 11(vii). All duties, taxes and other levies payable by the contractor under the Contract or for any other cause as applicable on the last date of submission of tender shall be included in the rates, prices and the total Bid price submitted by the Bidder. All incidentals, overheads, etc. as may be attendant upon execution and completion of works shall also be included in the rates, princes and total Bid price submitted by the bidder. However, such duties, taxes, levies etc which is notified after the last date of submission of tender and/or any increase over the rate existing on the last date of submission of tender shall be reimbursed by the company on production of documentary evidence in support of payment actually made the concerned authorities. 13. Payment Conditions: Payment will be released in the manner as indicated in “Special terms & Conditions for the contract” (enclosed). The provision as stipulated at clause 11(VII) of General Terms and Conditions of the tender document, if Service Tax is legally payable by the Tenderer in relation to this contract, the same will be reimbursed by BCCL on production of documentary evidence of having made such payment (Mentioned in part II).” 14. As per the contract agreement, if Service Tax is legally payable by the Tenderer in relation to the contract, the same is to be reimbursed by the BCCL on production of documentary evidence having made such payment. As per the contract agreement, if Service Tax is legally payable by the Tenderer in relation to the contract, the same is to be reimbursed by the BCCL on production of documentary evidence having made such payment. As per this clause, the contractor is to be reimbursed only for the payment actually made by him for Service Tax. According to BCCL, the contractors have been submitting their bill for reimbursement of Service Tax including other contracts of other organizations in which similar work of transportation contracts are included and in this lump-sum CENVAT credit, the contractor claimed the Service Tax calculated at the prevailing rate and from the said amount the lump-sum CENVAT credit is deducted and the net amount is shown as paid to the Service Tax authorities through e-payment. As per the Corrigendum/Amendment, BCCL decided to stop reimbursement of Service Tax paid through CENVAT and also to take necessary action for the recovery of the amount unduly reimbursed to the contractors. The Corrigendum/Amendment makes it clear that Service Tax will be reimbursed only on production of original challan having made cash remittance of such Service Tax. 15. In the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition (W.P.(T) No. 1548 of 2012) BCCL referred to the observation of Chief Technical Examiner (CTE) of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) stating that “As per this clause, the contractor was to be reimbursed only for the payment made by him for service tax. Contractor submitted their bills for reimbursement of service tax including contracts of other organization in which similar work of transportation contracts were included. In this Lump sum CENVAT was claimed in which the service tax was calculated @ 10.3 % of the payment received and from this amount CENVAT credit was deducted and the net amount was shown as paid to the authority through e-payment. Department is reimbursing the total 10.3% as service tax whereas only the net payment made by the contractor was to be reimbursed. Till date Rs. 4.81 crore were reimbursed to the contractor. If the proportionate payment made to service tax department is calculated considering proportionate CENVAT credit, Contractor should have been reimbursed only Rs. 2.12 crores. Thus Rs. 2.6 Crore were paid extra. Action taken including recovery made may be intimated.” 16. Till date Rs. 4.81 crore were reimbursed to the contractor. If the proportionate payment made to service tax department is calculated considering proportionate CENVAT credit, Contractor should have been reimbursed only Rs. 2.12 crores. Thus Rs. 2.6 Crore were paid extra. Action taken including recovery made may be intimated.” 16. The Functional Directors considered the same and in order to have clarity in the system, the Functional Directors approved incorporation as a Corrigendum/Amendment to the Clause in respect of Service Tax for different tenders and different existing contracts already awarded. The Corrigendum/Amendment to clause in respect of Service Tax was incorporated in different tenders, which reads as under: “1. The quoted offer should be exclusive of Service Tax. Service Tax if it is legally payable by the Contractor under this Contract, will be reimbursed by BCCL on production of original challan of having made cash remittance of such Service Tax to the Service Tax authority. 2. Original Challan will be defaced by management by putting a stamp across the challan. Defacement to be done with the following stamp: Reimbursed the Service Tax For Rs................................... For W.O. No.......................... Dated..................of BCCL. GM(F)I/c AFM Area......... 3. Copies of original challan duly attested by General Manager (F) I/c will be retained for subsequent use as per requirement. 4. Service Tax reimbursement will be made to the contractor for net Service Tax payment (Calculated service tax on the value of work less paid through CENVAT). 5. Copy of Returns of the firms showing all details of Service Tax should be furnished. 6. A self—certification declaring that the Service Tax amount claimed through the submitted voucher will not be further claimed for any other work. Further General Manager (Finance) Central Account & Taxation will obtain relevant information from all concerned Area/Units that reimbursement of Service Tax has been done throughout the year by following the above mentioned procedure. A consolidated report at the end of year, preferably in the first quarter of the year, may be sent to the concerned Authorities for verification.” The above Corrigendum/Amendment to the clause in respect of service tax was communicated by circular dated 2.3.2012. 17. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent-BCCL that reimbursement of service tax to the petitioners is governed by the contractual terms between the petitioners/service providers and BCCL. 17. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent-BCCL that reimbursement of service tax to the petitioners is governed by the contractual terms between the petitioners/service providers and BCCL. They are not governed under the provisions as contained in Finance Act, 1994 and the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 18. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the decision taken by the Functional Directors to incorporate Corrigendum/Amendment to the contract clause and terms of the clause in respect of Service Tax is unilateral and arbitrary and in conflict with the CENVAT Credit Rules. It is further contended that clause 11(vii) provides for reimbursement of Service Tax paid in its entirety and Clause 11(vii) nowhere provides for reimbursement the Service Tax amount paid only in cash or by cheque or through e-payment and excludes the payments made by utilization of CENVAT Credit paid on the inputs materials, credit of which is taken under Rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules. Learned senior counsel further contended that in the garb of Corrigendum/Amendment, there cannot be an unilateral amendment of an existing contract without the consent of the other party. 19. There is no force in the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of Corrigendum/Amendment to Clause in respect of Service Tax, the contract agreement for different tenders was unilaterally altered. The Corrigendum/Amendment to clause in respect of Service Tax for different tenders was only clarificatory of Clause 13 of the work order and clause 11(vii) of the Contract Agreement. According to the respondent-BCCL such Corrigendum/ Amendment to clause in respect of service tax was essential in the light of fact that since March, 2011 coal has become excisable goods and accordingly, BCCL has been availing CENVAT Credit on the amount of the service Tax paid/reimbursed on services taken. Further case of BCCL is that since clause 11(vii) of the General Terms & Conditions of the tender document stipulates that all duties, taxes and levies are included in the quoted rate of the contractor, no reimbursement of service tax is legally admissible against the payment claimed through CENVAT Credit as in that case it will become a case of double payment to the contractor. It is in this context the Corrigendum/Amendment dated 2nd March, 2012 to clause in respect of Service Tax was issued clarifying that the Service Tax will be reimbursed only if paid through cash remittance or e-payment. In our considered opinion, the Corrigendum/ Amendment dated 2nd March, 2012 does not amount to unilateral alteration of the terms and conditions of the contract and is only clarificatory. 20. Drawing our attention to the bills raised by the writ petitioner (M/s Dhansar Engineering Company Ltd), wherein service tax is claimed at the rate of 10 % of the bills raised, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that when 10 % Service Tax has been paid, the same could be paid either by cash or by CENVAT Credit and the right of the petitioner cannot be curtailed in restricting reimbursement of service tax only paid by way of cash remittance. It is submitted that under the garb of corrigendum the BCCL cannot arbitrarily restrict reimbursement of service tax only to the net amount paid directly through cash or cheque or through e-payment. Learned senior counsel submitted that Clause (4) of the corrigendum that “Service Tax reimbursement will be made to the contractor for net Service Tax payment (calculated Service Tax on the value of the work less paid through CENVAT)”, is arbitrary and the Corrigendum/Amendment dated 2.03.2012 is liable to be quashed. 21. There is no quarrel over the proposition that Rule 3(4)(e) enables that the CENVAT Credit may be utilized for payment of service tax on any input service. But the question is whether the petitioners are entitled to claim CENVAT Credit in relation to the work order/contract agreement with BCCL and claim reimbursement of Service Tax paid through CENVAT credit. 22. As pointed out earlier, Clause 11(vii) of the General Terms & Conditions of the tender document stipulates that all duties, taxes and levies are included in the total Bid price/quoted rate of the contractor. Thus as per Clause 11(vii) the excise duty involved in purchase of equipments, spares etc. required for the work is included in the rate/price quoted by the contractor i.e. total excise duty paid by the contractor is being paid to the contractor by BCCL through its bills against the executed quantity of work. Thus as per Clause 11(vii) the excise duty involved in purchase of equipments, spares etc. required for the work is included in the rate/price quoted by the contractor i.e. total excise duty paid by the contractor is being paid to the contractor by BCCL through its bills against the executed quantity of work. Because BCCL is paying whole excise duty to the contractor through bills, the contractor is not entitled to get payment against the same that is, the paid excise duty again and hence, the contractor is not liable for reimbursement of service tax paid through CENVAT Credit, which is a part of excise duty. It was therefore clarified through corrigendum that the contractor should be reimbursed the service tax only to the extent that he pays by way of cash and not through CENVAT Credit. 23. On behalf of the petitioners it was then contended that the averment contained in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that excise duty has already been paid to the contractor is misconceived and false. Learned senior counsel submitted that the averments made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that the excise duty paid on the input materials are paid back to the contractors through their bill against the executed quantity of work are erroneous and no material has been placed to show that excise duty has been paid by BCCL on the machineries/input materials. The learned Senior counsel further contended that in the tender submitted, the contractor was not required to quote any rate/price for the equipments, spares etc. to be used in carrying out contractual job and there was thus no scope for the contractor to include the cost of machineries, spares etc in the bills raised by it for executing the contractual work and, therefore, there could be no scope for making payment to the petitioner the cost paid on machinery, spares etc. 24. The above arguments are advanced not keeping in view, Clause 11(vii) of the General Terms & Conditions of the tender agreement, which stipulates that all duties, taxes and levies are to be included in the quoted rate of contract. Because BCCL is paying whole excise duty on the input materials to the contractor through bills, the contractor is not entitled to get CENVAT credit against the said excise duty paid to the contractor by BCCL. 25. Because BCCL is paying whole excise duty on the input materials to the contractor through bills, the contractor is not entitled to get CENVAT credit against the said excise duty paid to the contractor by BCCL. 25. On behalf of petitioners, it was contended that the BCCL has not produced any material to show that the excise duty was paid to the petitioners on the input materials/cost of machinery, spares etc in the bills raised by the petitioner for executing the contractual work. Per contra, as discussed earlier, the respondent-BCCL has taken stand that BCCL is paying the whole excise duty to the contractor through bills and the contractor is not entitled to get the CENVAT in relation to the Contract Agreement and claim reimbursement of Service Tax as it would amount to double payment. Whether the excise duty, on a particular machinery/input materials used by the contractor, was paid to the contractor by respondent-BCCL or not is a serious disputed question of fact and the writ Court cannot go into such disputed questions of fact. 26. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others”, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 , the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, the same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain the writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. The learned Senior counsel has contended that the stand taken by the respondent is contrary to the provision of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and thus, the dispute sought to be raised by the respondent is frivolous. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that what is challenged in the present proceeding by the petitioner is the arbitrary action by the respondents and thus, the petitioner has rightly approached this Court by filing the writ petition. 27. In ABL International Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking note of the previous judgments of the Court has held thus : “27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition: (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition: (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. 28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction. 28. It is thus clear that in “ABL International Ltd.” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition would depend on the facts of the case. It has been held that if the State or its instrumentality has acted in an arbitrary and unlawful manner or the action challenged is of a public authority invested with the statutory power, even if the action complained of arises out of contractual obligation, the Writ Court may interfere. 29. As pointed out earlier, Clause 11 (vii) of General terms and conditions of the contract provides that if service tax is legally payable by the tenderer in relation to this contract, the same will be reimbursed by the BCCL on production of the documentary evidence of having made such payments. 29. As pointed out earlier, Clause 11 (vii) of General terms and conditions of the contract provides that if service tax is legally payable by the tenderer in relation to this contract, the same will be reimbursed by the BCCL on production of the documentary evidence of having made such payments. By the corrigendum, it has been provided that Service Tax reimbursement will be made to the contractor on production of original Challan having made cash remittance of such Service Tax to the service tax authorities. Admittedly, the Service tax liability is of the contractor and under the conditions of the contract the BCCL has agreed to reimburse the amount of Service Tax so paid by the contractor by cash remittance. In this view of the matter, the BCCL cannot be faulted for insisting on production of original challan evidencing payment of service tax by cash remittance and the said act of BCCL cannot be said to be arbitrary so as to entertain the writ petition. We have already held that the Corrigendum/Amendment issued on 2.03.2012 is only clarificatory. 30. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that normally the High Court will not issue writ to the exclusion of other available remedies unless the action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable. Clause-12 of the Conditions of Contract provides for “Settlement of Disputes”. It is provided therein that in case of a dispute the contractor should make a request in writing to the Engineer-in-Chief for settlement of such dispute/claim within 30 days of the cause of dispute/claim, failing which no dispute/claim of the contractor shall be entertained by the company. It is further provided that thereafter the contractor may approach the Court of law. The Tender Notice also provides in Clause-32.1 that the matter relating to any dispute or difference arising out of the tender or subsequent contract awarded, based on the bid shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the “Dhanbad Court only”. The letter dated 12.02.2010 whereby the award of the subject work was approved in favour of the petitioner, contained a condition that any dispute or claim arising out of the contract, the parties to the contract shall adjudicate their claims through the Civil Court of “Dhanbad Court only” and no other Court will have any jurisdiction in the matter. 31. In “State of U.P. Vs. 31. In “State of U.P. Vs. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd.”, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the existence of an effective alternative remedy which is provided in the contract itself, is a good ground for the Court to decline to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. This judgment in “Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd.” has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “ABL International Ltd.” (supra). 32. A rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner wherein, the stand taken by the respondent-BCCL has been replied by stating that it is an admission on part of the respondents that the service tax liability is of the respondents for which CENVAT Credit is being claimed by them to the extent of remittance of service tax liability is being paid. Per contra the respondent-BCCL has taken the stand that since BCCL is paying the whole excise duty to the contractor through the bills, the contractor is not entitled to get the excise duty paid by the contractor again and contractor is not entitled for reimbursement of service tax paid through CENVAT Credit. The stand thus taken by the parties clearly shows that the dispute between the parties involves serious disputed questions of fact. 33. Payment or non-payment of excise duty by respondent-BCCL on the input material/machinery is a serious disputed question of fact. The respondent-BCCL has taken a stand that the contractor has been submitting bill for reimbursement of Service Tax including other contracts of other organizations, in which, similar order of transportation contracts are included in the lump-sum CENVAT which the contractor claimed and thus, the respondent-BCCL insisted on furnishing documentary proof of payment of Service Tax by cash remittance by the contractor. Thus whether the contractor has any CENVAT credit in relation to the present contract agreement with BCCL is also a question of fact which has been seriously disputed by the respondent-BCCL. Since as per terms of the contract, alternative remedy for settling the dispute is available to the parties, and since we have already held that the action of the respondent-BCCL in issuing the Corrigendum/Amendment is not arbitrary, these writ petitions cannot be entertained and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 34. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim stay granted in all the writ petitions are vacated. 34. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim stay granted in all the writ petitions are vacated. Consequently all the interlocutory applications are disposed of. Petition dismissed.