JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, Sri Devendra Kumar, learned counsel, appears for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri S.K. Mishra along with Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsels, for the respondents no. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner has come up questioning the order dated 28.7.2014 and 2.8.2014, passed by respondent no. 3 in relation to imposition of certain liabilities that have been realised from the petitioner, who is a contractor, for loss suffered by the Corporation in terms of Clause XII(a) and (b) of the Terms of the Agreement as contained in the Bid documents dated 21.4.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be saddled with such liabilities under the contract that too in the absence of any heads on which such liability can be imposed. The amount has been forcibly realised from the petitioner. The amounts in particular are the Railway Transit Loss, the Additional Shunting Charges and Railway Derailment Charges as well as demurrage in respect thereof. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has not entered into any contract with the railways. He has relied upon certain letters which have been brought on record to contend that according to the said letters, such a liability could not have been imposed in respect of the aforesaid liabilities that has been erroneously clamped on the petitioner. 5. At the very outset, we had called upon the learned counsel for the parties to inform the Court as to whether any arbitration agreement exists between them so that this dispute pertaining to such liability can be referred for arbitration. Learned counsel for the parties have informed that no such arbitration agreement exists. 6. In our considered opinion, the nature of the dispute, which is sought to be raised between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation is purely a question relating to the breach of the terms and conditions of the contract and the ground of arbitrariness is clearly dependant on such facts, which may be required to be deciphered on evidence. Consequently, the proper remedy would be to file a civil suit as such we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 7. Consequently, the proper remedy would be to file a civil suit as such we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 7. This is however without prejudice to the rights of the parties to invoke the General Conditions of Contract, if any enumerated and prevalent in the Central Warehousing Corporation to seek appointment of an arbitrator through the Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as is reflected in the latest judgement of the Apex Court in the case of North Eastern Railway & others vs. Tripple Engineering Works, Civil Appeal No. 6275 of 2014 decided on 13.8.2014. 8. The writ petition is dismissed with the observation that if any lawful provision of arbitration is invoked or the petitioner chooses for mediation under the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Scheme, he can apply for the same, or in the event a suit is filed, the petitioner can invoke the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Court Procedure Mediation Rule 2009 read with the Uttar Pradesh Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules 2009 that can be undertaken without being influenced by the dismissal of this petition.