JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner before this Court is a Company, which is incorporated under the Companies Act which entered into a contract with the Government of Uttarakhand, which was for running 4 Government Hospitals on Public Private Partnership basis. The contract was executed on 14.08.2013 with a duration period of 5 years, with a termination clause. The contract also has an Arbitration Clause, which reads as under: “11.2 Arbitration (a) Procedure Subject to the provisions of Clause 11.1, any dispute, which is not resolved amicably, shall be finally settled by binding arbitration under the Arbitration Act. The Arbitration shall be appointed by the Government and not below the rank of Principal Secretary. The Concessionaire shall within 30 days provide its consent on appointment of arbitrator recommended by the Government. In case any Party does not agree to the decision made by Arbitrator appointed as above then either Party shall proceed in accordance with procedure mentioned in The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (b) Place of Arbitration The place of arbitration shall ordinarily be Dehradun but by agreement of the Parties, the arbitration hearings, if required, may be held elsewhere. (c) English Language The request for arbitration, the answer to the request, the terms of reference, any written submissions, any orders and awards shall be in English and, if oral hearings take place, English shall be the language to be used in the hearings. (d) Enforcement of Award The parties agree that the decision or award resulting from arbitration shall be final and binding upon the Parties and shall be enforceable in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act subject to the rights of the aggrieved parties to secure relief from any higher forum. (e) Performance during Arbitration Pending the submission of and/or decision on a dispute and until the arbitral award is published; the Parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement, without prejudice to a final adjustment in accordance with such award.” 2. (e) Performance during Arbitration Pending the submission of and/or decision on a dispute and until the arbitral award is published; the Parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement, without prejudice to a final adjustment in accordance with such award.” 2. There is now some dispute between the petitioner and the respondent for non payment of bills, and so aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being WPMS No. 3230 of 2015, before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.07.2016 by the Division Bench of this Court by passing following order:- “A final decision will be taken in the matter arising out of the termination notices issued by the Director General within a period of two months from today. Before doing that, an opportunity must be afforded by the competent Authority to the petitioner in Writ Petition (MS) No. 3230 o 2015. It will be open to the petitioner in Writ Petition (MS) No. 3230 of 2015 to urge all contentions available to it in law before the competent Authority by placing all facts, including its contention that the decision dated 01.12.2015 was unauthorized, besides being not correct. The competent Authority will necessarily consider all the facts and also take a final decision in the matter, as held out, within a period of two months from today. In the meantime, in regard to the period from 1st January, 2016, till the date the staff has worked (this is for the reason that the learned Senior Counsel does not admit the contention raised by the petitioner that the staff has worked till 30th April, 2016), petitioner in Writ Petition (MS) No. 3230 of 2015 can produce material before the competent Authority and the competent Authority will take a decision at the earliest and if any amount is found due on the basis that they have worked during that period, the amount will not be withheld and will be released as per law. Regarding the period after April 30, 2016, even according to the petitioner, they have not worked, but we record the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that if they work, payment, as per law, will be released to them till a decision is taken by the competent Authority. We leave open all the contentions of the petitioner in Writ Petition (MS) No. 3230 of 2015. We leave open all the contentions of the petitioner in Writ Petition (MS) No. 3230 of 2015. We notice the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that actually there is no privity of contract in between the petitioners in Writ Petition (SB) No. 71 of 2016 and respondent nos. 1 to 4 and the privity of contract is between the petitioners and the fifth respondent therein. We make it clear that we have left open all the contentions of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition (MS) No. 3230 of 2015.” 3. Pursuant to the said order of the Division Bench of this Court, a notice was given to the petitioner on 11.08.2016 by the respondent-authority, in which the petitioner submitted the reply on 30.08.2016 as well as on 31.08.2016. Thereafter, an order dated 06.09.2016 was passed by the authority concerned rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner had also challenged the said rejection order dated 06.09.2016 before this Court in WPMS No. 3662 of 2016, where the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the impugned order may be set aside since it is a non speaking order, but opportunity may be given to the Director General to pass a fresh order in the matter. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.10.2016 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The operative portion of the same reads as under:- “Since, the order does not appear to be reasoned order, the impugned order dated 06.09.2016 is quashed. Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare is directed to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within a period of three weeks from today. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.” 4. Meanwhile, since the directions of the Division Bench of this Court (referred above) were not complied with by the respondent/authority concerned, the petitioner had also preferred a contempt petition before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2016. 5. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.” 4. Meanwhile, since the directions of the Division Bench of this Court (referred above) were not complied with by the respondent/authority concerned, the petitioner had also preferred a contempt petition before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2016. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 05.10.2016 of this Court, the Director General, Medical, Health & Family Welfare passed an order on 24.10.2016, which is annexure No. 1 to the present writ petition, where after noting down all the points raised by the petitioner, the Director General has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not complied with the terms of the contract in providing facilities as it ought to have done. Apart from this there are some serious allegations against the petitioner relating to malpractices, wherein the allegation is that unnecessary tests were prescribed to patients by the Doctors deputed by the petitioner. The Director General has concluded to be in violation of Clause 5.15.1 to 5.15.5 of the Concession Agreement etc. There are other reasons also assigned. Consequently, the following order was passed:- “Keeping in consideration all the repeated failure and substantial breach of agreed terms, the concession agreement is hereby terminated as per the provision of the Article 9 as more than sufficient opportunities have already been given to you to correct the shortcomings. The agreement will cease to be effective from the of 24th November 2016 (Termination Date). Your security deposit of Rs. 30 lacs/- is also forfeited as per the clause 9 of the MoU. This is to further notify you to vacate and handover the fixed assets/consumables/possession and control of all the Community Health Centres premises as mentioned in the Concession Agreement in a good condition after removal of all your items and belongings and clear all the dues, if any, on or before 24/11/2016 to the superintendent of the Community Health Centres under intimation to the undersigned.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would challenge the said order on various grounds but primarily that the said order is in gross violation of the directions given by the Division Bench as well as that of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPMS No. 3230 of 2015 and WPMS No. 3662 of 2016, respectively. The focus of learned counsel for the petitioner - Mr. The focus of learned counsel for the petitioner - Mr. Ashok Gupta would be that no personal hearing has been given to the petitioner and definitely no personal hearing has been given to the petitioner by the Director General, Medical, Health and Family Welfare. On this, the pointed rebuttal of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat is that at no point of time there was there any direction of this Court for granting a personal hearing to the petitioner. The direction was only to grant an opportunity to the petitioner, which has been given to the petitioner. All the points raised by petitioner have been duly considered in the order and a speaking order has now been passed. Moreover, the learned Senior Advocate has initially raised a primary objection that the petitioner has violated the agreement clause and there is an arbitration clause therein, therefore, the petitioner should have invoked the arbitration clause in order to resolve the dispute. 7. Having heard the rival submission and having considered the nature of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition and the same is rejected at the very threshold for the following reasons:- 8. Firstly, the entire case of the petitioner arises out of a contract, which has an arbitration clause, and hence a remedy is available to the petitioner. 9. Secondly, as far as earlier litigations before this Court are concerned, considering the directions given earlier, the same have been complied with, inasmuch as the only direction was to grant an opportunity to the petitioner, which has been followed, as it is also apparent from the records. There was definitely no order to give a personal hearing to the petitioner. An opportunity of hearing would mean that the points which have been raised by the petitioner regarding non-payment of his bills and others have been considered and while passing the order reasons must be reflected therein. This has been done, and therefore, in view of this Court the two orders of this Court dated 08.07.2016 (passed in WPMS No. 3230 of 2015) and dated 05.10.2016 (passed in WPMS No. 2662 of 2016) have been complied with. 10. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed in-limine.