ORDER : Aggrieved of order dated 24.06.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 4680 of 2011 whereby, order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary holding that Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited has rightly adjusted the loss caused by M/s Black Commandose has been quashed and a direction has been issued to the Corporation to pay Rs. 5,80,354.36 to the writ petitioner within four weeks, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited. 2. Briefly stated, an agreement was executed by the appellant-Corporation with M/s Black Commandose on 02.06.2008 for providing security guards at tourist places etc. The said agreement was effective from 01.06.2008 for a period of 2 years i.e., till 01.06.2010. When certain dues were not paid to the writ petitioner, it issued legal notice dated 24.12.2010 to the Corporation for payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 6,20,869.98. Thereafter, the respondent-writ petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 1392 of 2011 which was disposed of vide, order dated 02.05.2011 directing the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Tourism, Government of Jharkhand to decide the claim of the petitioner, treating the writ petition as representation. In the meantime, the Additional Chief Secretary-respondent no. 3 passed the order which was communicated through memo dated 09.05.2011 holding that outstanding dues is not payable to M/s Black Commandose. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submits that the dispute raised by the writ petitioner involves serious disputed question of facts and on that ground the writ petition was not maintainable. The writ petitioner who appeared before the Additional Chief Secretary and asserted its claim for payment of Rs. 5,80,354.36 cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the authority to adjudicate the matter. It is submitted that may be, there is no specific clause in the agreement dated 02.06.2008 for recovering loss caused to the Corporation due to negligence of the writ petitioner however, the adjudication of dispute by the Additional Chief Secretary vide, order dated 29.04.2011 cannot be challenged in a writ petition. 5. Per-contra, Mr. It is submitted that may be, there is no specific clause in the agreement dated 02.06.2008 for recovering loss caused to the Corporation due to negligence of the writ petitioner however, the adjudication of dispute by the Additional Chief Secretary vide, order dated 29.04.2011 cannot be challenged in a writ petition. 5. Per-contra, Mr. Rohitashya Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent-M/s Black Commandose reiterating the plea taken before the Writ Court submits that the unilateral decision of the appellant-Corporation to determine the quantum of loss sustained and the decision to adjust the said amount from the outstanding dues of the writ petitioner were arbitrary and thus, the writ petition was maintainable. Relying on the decision in "ABL International Ltd. and another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India and Others" reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 , the learned counsel submits that even in the matters arising out of contractual obligations, if the action of the State or its instrumentality is found arbitrary, the writ petition has been held maintainable. It is further submitted that the alleged loss of Rs. 6,61,899.53 allegedly suffered by the Corporation on account of negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the security guards deployed by the writ petitioner can be recovered only by filing a civil suit and the said loss cannot be adjusted from the outstanding dues of the writ petitioner. 6. A perusal of order dated 29.04.2011 discloses that the writ petitioner-M/s Black Commandose appeared before the Additional Chief Secretary on 29.04.2011 and claimed payment of Rs. 5,80,354.36 as outstanding dues from the Corporation. On the other hand, the Corporation contended that previously notices were issued to M/s Black Commandose vide, letters dated 09.08.2008, 26.08.2008, 06.03.2009, 14.07.2010 and 31.07.2010 for serious lapses in security at different places and the writ petitioner-M/s Black Commandose replied to some of those notices, admitting lapse on its part. It appears that on 02.05.2011 when W.P.(C) No. 1392 of 2011 was disposed of, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Additional Chief Secretary has heard the matter and accordingly, a direction was issued to the Additional Chief Secretary to decide the claim of the writ petitioner. 7. It appears that on 02.05.2011 when W.P.(C) No. 1392 of 2011 was disposed of, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Additional Chief Secretary has heard the matter and accordingly, a direction was issued to the Additional Chief Secretary to decide the claim of the writ petitioner. 7. The specific plea taken by the writ petitioner is that in absence of specific clause in agreement dated 02.06.2008 and in view of the fact that no complaint was lodged with the police for alleged theft at different tourist spots, the Corporation cannot unilaterally decide the quantum of loss allegedly sustained by it on account of negligence or laches on the part of the writ petitioner. It is not in dispute that agreement dated 02.06.2008 does not confer a right upon the employer to deduct the amount of loss sustained from the outstanding dues of M/s Black Commandose however, it is also not in dispute that both the parties consented for adjudication of the dispute by the Additional Chief Secretary by appearing before the said authority and raised rival claims. However, what makes order dated 29.04.2011 unsustainable is that it also does not disclose any adjudication on the quantum of loss to the tune of Rs. 6,61,899.53 sustained by the Corporation. 8. The impugned order dated 24.06.2015 passed by the Writ Court also makes it apparent that the main grievance of the writ petitioner was with respect to unilateral decision of the Corporation to fix the quantum of loss sustained by it and to adjust the said amount from outstanding dues of the writ petitioner. Since the specific plea of the writ petitioner that the assessed value of the stolen article or the damaged property was not done in its presence nor any notice was given for assessment was not denied by the Corporation, the learned Writ Court held the unilateral assessment of loss caused to the Corporation arbitrary and in breach of the rules of natural justice. 9. It is well-settled that in cases where the impugned decision is interfered with on the ground of breach of rules of natural justice, the matter should be remanded to the authority for a decision, afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing. The Writ Court therefore, instead of directing the Corporation to pay Rs. 9. It is well-settled that in cases where the impugned decision is interfered with on the ground of breach of rules of natural justice, the matter should be remanded to the authority for a decision, afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing. The Writ Court therefore, instead of directing the Corporation to pay Rs. 5,80,354.36 to the writ petitioner should have remitted the matter back to the Additional Chief Secretary for a fresh decision on the quantum of loss, if any, sustained by the Corporation on account of alleged negligence on the part of the writ petitioner. The learned Writ Court over-looked the fact that the writ petitioner contested its claim before the Authority and after having failed in its attempt raised various technical pleas before the Writ Court. 10. Since, order dated 29.04.2011 does not reflect any determination on the quantum of loss allegedly sustained by the Corporation and considering the fact that both the parties had acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Secretary, without adverting to the question of maintainability of the writ petition, the matter is remitted back to the Additional Chief Secretary for deciding the quantum of loss, if any, sustained by the Corporation and to pass a reasoned order, after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective claims. Order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary and order dated 24.06.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 4680 of 2011 passed by the learned Writ Court are quashed and set-aside. 11. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.