JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Aggrieved by order dated 27.11.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 4869 of 2015, whereby challenge to order as contained in letter No. 21.09.2015, which is a notice for termination of the Agreement, has been rejected, the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Jamshedpur Waste Processing Company Private Limited. 2. The appellant-company was incorporated as Special Purpose Vehicle by SPML Infra Limited and M/s Integral Screw Industry Limited as the lead member of consortium. A Concession Agreement was entered on 08.08.2012 between the appellant and Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee and the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,66,00,000/-issued from Canara Bank, Camac Street, Kolkata was furnished to the respondents. 3. The case of the appellant is that inspite of several letters for removing encroachment from the site, peaceful and vacant possession of the identified project site was not handed over to the appellant within 30 days from the appointed day, which resulted in considerable loss to the appellant. Further case of the appellant is that inaction on the part of the respondents attracts Clause 6.1(a) and 6.1(b) of the Concession Agreement nonetheless, vide letter dated 21.09.2015, the respondent-Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee gave notice for termination under Clause 9.2(c) of the Concession Agreement. 4. The appellant has filed an application in this Court for appointment of Arbitrator vide Arbitration Application No. 21/2004, is the admitted position. Moreover, it appears that after execution of the Agreement, the appellant was handed over possession of 30.39 acres of land and it had, in fact, started work over there, however due to protest from the villagers, the appellant was constrained to stop work. The plea taken by the appellant in respect of possession of clear site not handed over to it, is a contentious issue, which can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. The question of wrongful termination of the agreement is a question which, in the facts of the present case, more particularly the defence taken by the appellant, would involve an adjudication on disputed questions of fact, which is normally not undertaken by the Writ Court. This issue can very well be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal. In so far as, wrongful/illegal invocation of Bank Guarantee is concerned, Arbitral Tribunal can pass an appropriate order and make an order for restitution, if warranted in law. 5. This issue can very well be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal. In so far as, wrongful/illegal invocation of Bank Guarantee is concerned, Arbitral Tribunal can pass an appropriate order and make an order for restitution, if warranted in law. 5. Viewed thus, we find no merit in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, which is dismissed at the admission state itself. However, it is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeal would not cause prejudice to the appellant-writ petitioner in the proceeding before the Arbitral Tribunal.