JUDGMENT : TASHI RABSTAN, J. 1. Director General of Indian System of Medicines-Respondent No. 2, issued e-Tender Notice No. DISM/Medicines/01 of 2016 for supply of classical Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines for the year 2015-16 and second e-Tender No. DISM/Medicines/02 of 2016 for supplying proprietary/patent Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines. Tenders in both Notices were invited from original manufacturers, registered with Health and Medical Education Department/Directorate of Indian System of Medicines. One of the conditions of e-Tender notices is Clause 16, specifying that if any issue/dispute arises during course of supply between supplier and purchaser that shall be decided by Purchasing Committee for Directorate of Indian System of Medicines, J & K, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties and any other condition not indicated in the tender can be incorporated in the supply order or agreement at any point of time if need arises which will be binding on the parties. Petitioner, amongst others, responded to above e-Tenders. Respondent No. 2, after petitioner's successful qualification, issued supply orders dated 2nd September, 8th November and 21st November 2016 (Annexure F, G & H). In terms of order dated 30th November 2016, supply orders dated 8th and 23rd November 2016 have been cancelled, of which petitioner is aggrieved. 2. The case set up by petitioner is that petitioner is an SSI unit, engaged in manufacturing process of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines. Respondent No. 3 issued e-Tenders (Annexure D & E to petition). Petitioner responded thereto. Supply Order No. DG-ISM/PS/2016/636-40, dated 2nd September 2016 (Annexure F to writ petition) was issued. The supply was made to respondents within time compliant with supply order. This was followed by orders, being No. ISM/PS/2016/7675-70, dated 8th November 2016 and No. DG-ISM/PS/2016/743-48, dated 23rd November 2016 (Annexure G & H to writ petition) for supply of more classical and proprietary medicines. Petitioner pleads that aimed at complying supply orders dated 8th and 23rd November 2016, petitioner put its machinery in action and purchased raw material from inside and outside the State and commenced manufacturing process. Petitioner pleads that aimed at complying supply orders dated 8th and 23rd November 2016, petitioner put its machinery in action and purchased raw material from inside and outside the State and commenced manufacturing process. While petitioner was busy in manufacturing medicines for making supply in time, it received letter No. DG-ISM/PS/2016/2027, dated 29th November 2016, informing petitioner as to incorporation of Clause 16-A to Clause 16 of Supply Orders, enabling Directorate of Indian System of Medicines to withdraw or cancel supply orders, partially or in full, at any time before supply is received and before agreement in terms of Clause 9 of Supply Order is executed. Respondents are contended to have on next day, i.e. 30th November 2016 (Annexure K to petition), cancelled/withdrew supply orders dated 8th and 23rd November 2016. 3. On the foundation of case set up, petitioner seeks following relief: (i) Certiorari, quashing Order No. DG-ISM/PS/2016/2045-49, dated 30th November 2016, whereby supply orders dated 8th November 2016 and 23rd November 2016 have been directed to be cancelled/withdrawn consequently the addendum; (ii) Mandamus, commanding respondents to abide by tendering process initiated vide e-Tender Notice No. DISM/Medicines/01 of 2016, and e-Tender Notice No. DISM/Medicines/02/2016, thereby to allow petitioner to make supplies in accordance to the supply orders dated 8th and 23rd November 2016; (iii) Prohibition, prohibiting respondent No. 1 from shifting funds allocated for purchase of medicines to any other corporation or authority whatsoever. 4. Respondents, in their reply, aver that petitioner has alternate remedy available under Clause 32, which provides for a mechanism of redressal of dispute, if any, against respondents through arbitral process. Respondents' assertion is that in response to NIT, petitioner tendered to supply medicines by expressly accepting all conditions, including provision of arbitration and that it is settled in view of alternative remedy available through arbitral process, writ petition is not maintainable. Also, similar was the condition i.e. Clause No. 16 in Supply Order dated 8th and 23rd November 2016. According to respondents, no formal agreement has been executed and without entering into formal agreement as stipulated in Clause 28 of NIT, supply of medicines cannot be insisted on the context of writ of mandamus. Also, similar was the condition i.e. Clause No. 16 in Supply Order dated 8th and 23rd November 2016. According to respondents, no formal agreement has been executed and without entering into formal agreement as stipulated in Clause 28 of NIT, supply of medicines cannot be insisted on the context of writ of mandamus. They avow condition of NIT, i.e. clause 39, has been accepted by petitioner, by which respondents reserve right not to purchase any quantity from petitioner at any stage and respondents had been never bound to take supply at all from petitioner and after accepting this condition with wide open eyes, petitioner is estopped from raising any grievance in terms of this specific condition. 5. Further affirmation of respondents in their Reply to show what petitioner averred in writ petition is false, is that after impugned order dated 30th November 2016 was issued, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir through J & K Medical Supplies Corporation Limited (JKMSCL), a Government owned Company, incorporated under Companies Act in the year 2013, has issued fresh tenders through e-Tendering process, uploaded on website of JKMSCL on 18th January 2017 and petitioner, if eligible, in terms of this tender notice, can always participate in fresh tendering process. Respondents also maintain that petitioner, as per Clause 37 of NIT and Clause 16 of Supply Order(s), has agreed to incorporation of any other condition or conditions, not specifically earlier indicated or made mention of, in Supply Order(s) or agreement(s) at any point of time, and that will be binding on parties. After accepting this condition, petitioner is estopped from raising any grievance vis-a-vis incorporation in addendum to Supply Order dated 29th November 2016 and bound by terms and conditions accepted by him. 6. Respondents insist that in terms of Govt. Order No. 453-HME of 2014, dated 1st August 2014, all Heads of Departments, under administrative control of Health and Medical Education Department, had been directed to transfer 75% of budgetary allocation under detailed Head 081-Drugs and Instruments and 100% of the allocation under detailed Head 020-Machinery and Equipment both Plan and Non-Plan for the year 2014-15 to JKMSCL for procurement of Drugs, Machinery and Equipments, as per requirement and subsequently Govt. Order No. 453-HME of 2014, dated 1st August 2014 was modified from time to time by virtue of various Government Orders, including Order No. 575-HME of 2014, dated 6th October 2014, Order No. 104-HME of 2015 dated 6th April 2015 and fresh date of applicability was fixed from 1st August 2015, and consequently Govt. Order No. 575-HME of 2014, dated 16th October 2014 was modified by Govt. Order No. 309-HME of 2015, dated 11th August 2015 and it was ordered that Govt. Order No. 453-HME of 2014, dated 1st August 2014, so far it relates to transfer of funds under drugs, instruments and machinery and equipments for financial year 2015-16, shall be applicable from 1st January 2016, and later on vide Govt. Order No. 37-HME of 2016, dated 22nd January 2016, further extension was granted from 1st January 2016 subject to the condition that: the concerned Head of Department, based on the information to be received from JKMSCL regarding timelines of supplies to be received, shall take necessary steps to tide over shortage of medicines, if any, during interregnum as per codal formalities for procurement and subject to availability of funds for specified purpose; the arrangement shall purely be temporary in nature till 29th February 2016 or till such time the supplies become available through JKMSCL, whichever is earlier; that Directorate of ISM sought further extension from Administrative Department on 24th August 2016 vide No. DG-ISM/2856-57, dated 24th August 2016 on the reasoning given therein; the date of applicability was further extended up to 29th February 2016, vide Govt. Order No. 37-HME of 2016, dated 22nd January 2016; extension was granted vide letter No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 27th October 2016 for procurement up to March 2017, with serious observations. One of the observations was that it has been seen that ISM Department did not care to place indents in right earnest to JKMSCL for timely procurements and the whole issue had been unnecessarily delayed, which was a matter of grave concern and the department be apprised about the reasons and as to how the requirement of medicine etcetera for ISM during current financial year up to ending 2016 had been made. It is also insisted that considering the fact that only last five months of financial year remained and the lead time for procurement and supplies in JKMSCL was 3-4 months, it was fiat accompli that procurements through JKMSCL as far as ISM was concerned, would not get completed because of this delay from ISM Department and approval for procurement was given only in the interest of patient care and to ensure timely availability of medicine. 7. Respondents' contention is that on 18th November 2016, Vigilance Organisation Jammu vide letter No. VO-JSC-JMU-7/16-15842-44, dated 18th November 2016 (Annexure R-5 to Reply) addressed to Respondent No. 1, and copy whereof endorsed to Respondent No. 2, intimated that 11 samples of medicines lifted by Vigilance Organisation Jammu, from some ISM institutions were sent for testing to NABL Laboratories and test reports of five medicines out of 11 were received, which were found substandard and severely infested with fungus/pathogen and not fit for human consumption. As asserted by respondents that the following orders/instructions (Annexure R-6 to Reply) were received from Administrative Department on 25th November 2016: i. Enquiry committee was constituted vide Govt. Order No. 616-HME of 2016, dated 25.11.2016 to go into all procedures and processes followed for procurement of medicine by ISM Department and steps adopted for ensuring quality of medicines "during procurement. ii. The then Director" General ISM was attached with Administrative Department pending enquiry. iii. Health and Medical Education Department vide letter No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 25.11.2016 withdrew/cancelled its earlier letter No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 27.10.2016 (by virtue of which approval was conveyed to go for procurement of medicines upto 31.03.2017). It was also directed that all future procurement of ISM drugs and medicines must be made through JKMSCL after ensuring quality and all codal procedures. iv. Vide letter No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 25.11.2016, the Administrative Department directed to withdraw drugs found unfit for human consumption as intimated by VOJ vide communication dated 18th November 2016 from all peripheral institutions and issue instructions to doctors not to prescribe same. 8. Respondents also put in words that a Committee was constituted vide Order No. DG-ISM/PS/2016/1997-2005, dated 29th November 2016 to examine the issue and recommend further course of action. 8. Respondents also put in words that a Committee was constituted vide Order No. DG-ISM/PS/2016/1997-2005, dated 29th November 2016 to examine the issue and recommend further course of action. The committee so constituted, is contended to have submitted the report and recommended immediate withdrawal of supply orders and as a consequence of the said recommendations, respondent department should issue communications to all suppliers regarding withdrawal of their supply orders and that respondent department should make a communication to JKMSCL for making all procurements of ISM drugs and medicines. In view of the recommendations of the committee, petitioners are stated to have been intimated about incorporation of condition 16-A in the supply orders pursuant to condition No. 16 and subsequently the supply orders issued in favour of petitioners/manufacturers, were withdrawn and cancelled. The Requisition Committee was constituted vide Order No. DGISM/Acctts/5085-90, dated 20th December 2016 to prepare requisition to placing indent to JKMSCL and the requisition committee furnished requisition and indent was placed with JKMSCL vide letter No. DGISM/Acctts/5113-14, dated 26th December 2016, so that funds were not lapsed which would affect public interest and patient care, the respondents so aver in the Reply. Their contention is that JKMSCL, in pursuance of requisition so placed, has already floated e-NIT for ISM drugs vide No. JKMSCL/Ayd/Unani/Med/2017/130, dated 18th January 2017 as it has been entrusted with responsibilities of procurement of all kinds and varieties of generic and patent medicines, both allopathic, ayurvedic, homeopathic, other system of medicines, medical supplies, surgical accessories, hospital equipments, machineries, vehicles, ambulances or other facilities to various medical colleges, District and Sub-District Hospitals (PHCs & CHCs), health centres, dispensaries or other such institutions under the Health and Medical Education Department of the Government of J & K or other State or Central Government Departments/institutions or to outsource or act as agent for outsourcing such suppliers/equipments, instruments or other facilities on behalf of such institutions. JKMSCL is stated to have been set up as a company for this purpose and part of its objectives was to relieve the service providers (HoDs/Doctors) from the additional burden of procurement and distribution process and it apart from securing the Lab Tests Certification by the companies, providing medicines/drugs, also gets the same tested independently through NABL accredited & GLP certified Labs for every batch of drugs/medicines supply. Respondents maintain that in view of allegations brought out by Vigilance Department as well as need to reinforce the mechanism for procurement of drugs being provided in Government Health Institutions, the State Government has ordered withdrawal of earlier permission granted vide letter No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 27th October 2016 and issuance of directions that the procurement shall be made through JKMSCL and action of recalling and withdrawing supply orders had been taken in terms of provisions contained in NIT and supply orders and that simultaneously the process of procurement was initiated through JKMSCL, which makes all its procurement through transparent e-tendering/e-bidding process and taking other safeguards of procurement of medicines. It is contended by respondents that they have acted strictly with their right in terms of NIT and supply order, while cancelling the contract and no right or claim has ever accrued to petitioners on the basis of contentions contained in the writ petition and the allegations of petitioners regarding any illegality, deprivation of any of stated right of petitioners to close ISM centres are completely wrong. The supply orders are contended to have been cancelled only in public interest and Government has initiated fresh process through specialised agency i.e. JKMSCL and besides no loss or damage as alleged has caused to petitioners as order of supply was issued on 23rd November 2016 and Government cancelled the same on 25th November 2016. Respondents further maintain that petitioner knows very well that on 25th November 2016, Government withdrew permission that was earlier granted in favour of ISM for procurement of medicine and directed that future medicine will be procured by JKMSCL and as a matter of fact JKMSCL has been established by Government of Jammu and Kashmir on the pattern of Tamil Nadu Medical Supplies Corporation as to ensure transparency, fairness and quality of medicines and that the corporation was established in the year 2013 in the larger public interest. JKMSCL has been sanctioned for establishment vide Govt. Order No. 329-HME of 2013, dated 22nd May 2013 pursuant to the Cabinet Decision No. 130/15/2013, dated 21st May 2013 on the model of Tamil Nadu Medical Supplies Corporation (TNMSC), for procurement of drugs, medicines and medical equipment, etc. in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the Department of Health and Medical Education Department. Order No. 329-HME of 2013, dated 22nd May 2013 pursuant to the Cabinet Decision No. 130/15/2013, dated 21st May 2013 on the model of Tamil Nadu Medical Supplies Corporation (TNMSC), for procurement of drugs, medicines and medical equipment, etc. in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the Department of Health and Medical Education Department. JKMSCL is mandated to make procurements and supplies for entire Health and Medical Education Department and respondent department is one of the wings of Health & Medical Education Department. It is insisted that though Directorate of ISM, Directorate of Health Services, GMC Srinagar, GMC Jammu, Drug & Food Control Organisation, etc. are separate wings, yet all are under the administrative control of Health & Medical Education Department and the funds meant for these separate Directorates/organisations, are provided to them through Administrative Department and that there is no question of diversion from one Directorate to other. Petitioner is stated to be trying to create confusion by concocting facts. Government in its wisdom has established a separate body for procurement in Health and Medical Education Department viz. JKMSCL, on the pattern of one in Tamil Nadu and this has been done in larger interest of public. Respondents submit that assiduous efforts have been made for last more than one decade to satiate long cherished dream of public to have such an independent organisation for procurement and Government has asked ISM Department to send requisition/indent to JKMSCL for procurement. By doing so, according to respondents, none of rights of petitioner has been infringed. As regards allegation of petitioner of diversion of funds, respondents insist that such allegation is false and baseless inasmuch as JKMSCL has no role in respondent department and as a matter of fact JKMSCL has been established as a procurement agency for whole Health and Medical Education Department. Respondents on the strength of averments made in Reply, seek dismissal of writ petition. 9. Petitioner filed Supplementary Affidavit to respond to the Reply of respondents. Therein he disputes the submissions of respondents. Respondents on the strength of averments made in Reply, seek dismissal of writ petition. 9. Petitioner filed Supplementary Affidavit to respond to the Reply of respondents. Therein he disputes the submissions of respondents. He maintains that some new facts and half-truths have been introduced with a sordid aim to deprive petitioner from supplying ayurvedic medicines, once ordered, which has far reaching consequence in terms of many denominations and that the simple of petitioner and similarly situated manufacturers, as delineated in writ petition, is that after having approved rate contract for supplying ayurvedic medicines, respondents had a change of heart and with a collateral purpose sought to insert Clause 16(A) in Supply Orders dated 8th and 23rd November 2016; pursuant whereof cancellation of orders was done in gross and wanton violation of principle of natural justice and law of promissory estoppel. Petitioner also adds that this Court stayed impugned order with a rider that petitioner and writ petitioners/other manufacturers would not insist on supplies till other-side is heard. He also submits that respondents in their Reply, particularly at paragraph 04 of Factual Matrix, have stated that as a consequence of report of Vigilance Organisation, communicated on 18th November 2016, some of the drugs lying in stores were found fungal infected and substandard, for which an enquiry committee was also constituted to go into all the procedure and processes followed for procurement of medicines of ISM Department and also steps were adopted for ensuring quality of medicines during procurement. Thereupon, as submitted by petitioner in his supplementary affidavit, the then Director General, ISM Department, was attached with Administrative Department pending enquiry and Health and Medical Education Department vide letter No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 25th November 2016 withdrew/cancelled its earlier letter No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 27th October 2016, by virtue of which approval was conveyed to go for procurement of medicine up to 31st March 2017 and all future procurements of ISM drugs and medicines to be made through JKMSCL after ensuring quality and all codal procedures. He also states that even though the allegation does not pertain to manufacturers, yet Vigilance Organisation otherwise was neither competent nor legally authorised to send sample to private laboratories to get desired result as per their choice and that there is only one designated laboratory for Ayush Medicines i.e. Pharmacopoeial Laboratory for Indian Medicine (PLIM) under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and rules made thereunder, which is only authorised to test legal samples of Ayush medicines. This, according to petitioner, being an afterthought and a ploy to unsettle supply order and cancel orders already given particularly when no such reason was ever advanced necessitating cancellation to petitioner and other manufacturers and on facts, however, it was stated in the open court by respondents through their counsel that Vigilance report did not pertain to drugs of petitioner or manufacturers. It is supplemented by petitioner that since respondents by virtue of an order dated 27th October 2016 had committed themselves to allowing ISM to procure medicines up to 31st March 2017 from manufacturers, the supply order already given could not have been cancelled for taking over the process of procuring Ayush medicines from ISM for the period up to 31st March 2017, although illegally, for a tender which was issued for 2015-16 and extended up to 31st March 2017. Therefore, in order to achieve the collateral purpose, as stated by petitioner, the Government authorised JKMSCL to procure Ayurvedic medicines for future i.e. after 31st March 2016, but JKMSCL has invited tenders for the year 2016-18. Since there was no approved rate contract in respect to medicines to be supplied upto 31st March 2017, therefore, corrigendum dated 14th February 2017, came to be issued stating that tender for 2016-18 to be read as 2017-19, which ought to have put lid on the controversy, the petitioner states. It is also insisted that in order to buttress the false stand justifying cancellation respondents issued yet another fabricated ante-date corrigendum which was not part of tender 2017-19, and that although petitioner is not required to contest the allegation, which does not pertain to him or other manufacturers for the supplies already made for which petitioner has already received payment. It is also insisted that in order to buttress the false stand justifying cancellation respondents issued yet another fabricated ante-date corrigendum which was not part of tender 2017-19, and that although petitioner is not required to contest the allegation, which does not pertain to him or other manufacturers for the supplies already made for which petitioner has already received payment. It is stated that the then Director General, ISM, was attached with Administrative Department and his order is already stayed and to his knowledge nothing was found against the said Director and that entire exercise was carried out with a malefic motive and cannot sustain scrutiny in eye of law. 10. This Court vide order dated 1st March 2017 asked J & K Medical Supplies Corporation Limited to submit response in view of submissions made by petitioner in his supplementary affidavit. JKMSCL has filed Response. It states therein that statement made on behalf of petitioner regarding corrigendum dated 16th February 2017 has been in fact signed and uploaded on the website on 28th February 2017, to defeat the rights of petitioner, is totally incorrect and is based on mere presumptions and assumptions. It is maintained that the correct position is that NIT for finalization of Rate Contract for supply of Ayurvedic Unani Classical and patent Medicines for the year 2016-18 was invited vide No. JKMSCL/Ayd/Unani/REP/2017/08, dated 14th February 2017, along with other amendments, under which period of Rate Contract was mentioned as 2017-19 instead of 2016-18 and that on 15th February 2017, during the routine scrutiny of relevant file, it was noticed that requisition as well as availability of funds had been conveyed by the Department for 2016-17 and accordingly, Rate Contract needed to be finalised for financial year, i.e. 2016, and the period of Rate Contract would have to be 2016-18 only instead of 2017-19. The matter is stated to have been placed before General Manager (Adm.) on 16th February 2017 and after that to Managing Director and approval was sought, with directions to issue necessary corrigendum in the matter immediately. The matter is stated to have been placed before General Manager (Adm.) on 16th February 2017 and after that to Managing Director and approval was sought, with directions to issue necessary corrigendum in the matter immediately. And thereafter, corrigendum was issued and sent to Agency (private party) maintaining JKMSCL Website for uploading on website through IT Cell of the Corporation and concerned agency was asked on 28th February 2017, through Gmail to intimate whether Corrigendum had been uploaded on the same day or not, to which concerned agency conveyed that corrigendum was uploaded on the website on the same day and also furnished screenshot of corrigendum. Petitioner is avowed to be registered firm with JKMSCL and in response to NIT No. JKMSCL/Ayd/Unani/Med/2017/130, dated 18th January 2017, he has already submitted his tender and not raised such issue before JKMSCL concerning uploading of Corrigendum on the website as stated by him before this Court, as such, no right, according to JKMSCL, has been infringed/violated as petitioner is one of participants in the bidding/tendering process initiated by JKMSCL. The tender deposited by petitioner and other bidders is stated to be in the process of scrutinization of the bid documents for placing qualified bidders for opening of Financial Bid and as per record petitioner is also figuring among the valid bidders. 11. Heard learned counsel for parties at length and considered the matter. 12. This Court vide order dated 29th March 2017, in view of issue involved in all writ petitions, being identical, took OWP No. 1823/2016 as lead case and after hearing learned counsel for parties, reserved all these writ petitions for judgment. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the payment in respect of order (Annexure-F) dated 02.09.2016 has already been made to the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the payment in respect of order (Annexure-F) dated 02.09.2016 has already been made to the petitioner. He also states that the parties to the contract insofar as tender notices are concerned, are bound to obey terms and conditions spelt out in tender notices and none of two parties, can impose any condition at its own muchless after bids are finalised, supply orders are issued and even one of supply orders executed and that suo moto decision to incorporate a condition without involving petitioner in such incorporation certainly has rendered the incorporation of Clause 16-A, as illegal and of no binding force, yet on the basis of the said self-motion, respondents have on 30th November 2016 cancelled/withdrawn the supply orders, which act on part of respondents speaks voluminous as to how respondents have put petitioner in to huge losses. Respondents' decision, as contended by learned counsel for petitioner, to incorporate a clause not existing earlier and not agreed to by petitioner vitiates the said decision as the same is hit by doctrine of promissory estoppel. Respondents, as such, are prohibited by law to take U-turn in accordance to the aforesaid doctrine. Learned counsel argues that no sufficient time was provided to petitioner to test the veracity of the incorporation, which has been done in haste to keep petitioner away from analysing the pros and cons of incorporation, just to avoid judicial scrutiny of the said incorporation and order impugned speaks about malice in mind of respondents inasmuch as impugned order is hit by promissory estoppel. The medicines have been prepared which can neither be used nor sold in open market as purchaser of the said medicines in the market are not available. 14. Learned counsel's further submission is that J & K Indian System of Medicines prior to 1988 had been component of Health and Family Welfare but thereafter it has been established as independent organisation as AYUSH has been declared as a separate system of treatment totally different from modern system of treatment, as such, Government of India has established a separate Ministry for AYUSH, after it has been bifurcated from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Thus, the Central Government i.e. the Ministry of AYUSH sanctions funds under central sponsored schemes to State Health Ministry, to be utilised through Directorate of India System of Medicines and it is thus the Directorate of J & K ISM who, under the aforesaid scheme, has to submit certificate for release of next instalment of grants, being so, the funds meant for the purchase of ayurvedic and unani medicines cannot be diverted or misused either by the State or its authorities for any other purpose other than the National Ayush Mission. The supply orders, according to learned counsel, have been issued under the Central Sponsored Scheme in terms of grants sanctioned by Government of India, which supply orders, issued under the Central Sponsored Schemes against the rate contract, cannot-be cancelled or withdrawn by respondents and that impugned order cancelling or withdrawing supply orders, are bad arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel also contends that every action of Government is to be informed by reasons muchless those based on sound principles of fairness and fair play and the despotic act neither speaks well about honesty of purpose nor the avowed purpose to achieve any reasonable end product. His further statement is that order impugned is against mandate of doctrine of promissory estoppel and that right to business for profit is a fundamental right, which has been infringed by respondents and has violated the fundamental rights of petitioner. To cement the arguments that learned counsel for petitioner advanced, he places reliance on State of Orissa v. Mangalam Timber 2004 (1) SCC 139 ; Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Lotus Hotels Private Limited AIR 1983 SC 848 ; and Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107 . 15. Opposite side account, that learned counsel for respondents during course of argumentation of the case has dilated, is that writ petition on hand raises purely contractual disputes and questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and that the power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes inasmuch as tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court and not in writ proceedings. He in support of this submission refers to law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bakshi Security and Personnel v. Dev Kishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 446 . His further side of story to justify veracity of impugned action of respondents, is that disputes concerning contracts are not to be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution, and therefore writ court is not the proper forum for contractual disputes. To this effect he relies on State of Kerala & Ors. v. M.K. Jose (2015) 9 SCC 433 . Efficacious remedy, according to learned counsel for respondents, is available to petitioner under Clause 32 of NIT that provides redressal of dispute, if any, against respondent department through arbitral process. Writ of mandamus, as maintained by counsel for respondents, cannot be issued for enforcement of private rights because the rights of parties, who have entered into a contract fall under the domain of private law irrespective of the fact whether the contract has been entered into by two private individuals or by an individual and the State and that when a contract agreement provides for arbitration, the remedy of aggrieved party lies in obtaining necessary relief by taking resort to arbitration proceeding and not by public law remedy, like, a writ of mandamus under Article 226. The dispute between parties in the present case, as vehemently maintained by learned counsel for respondents, ergo, arises out of a contract and the contract provides for arbitration, the remedy of petitioner lies in taking recourse to arbitration proceeding and not in seeking issuance of mandamus by this Court under Article 226. Clause 39 of Notice Inviting Tenders, as stoutly stated by learned counsel for respondents, which has been duly accepted by petitioner, springs an enshrined right upon respondent department not to purchase any quantity from petitioner at any stage and respondent department, in such circumstances, is not bound to take supply at all from petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for respondents also contends that J & K State Government in 2013 decided to set up a Medical Supplies Corporation for purchasing drugs and medical equipment at State Health Care Institutions and so, establishment of Jammu and Kashmir Medical Supplies Corporation Limited (JKMSCL) for purchasing drugs, instruments and disposables and other equipment required in health care institutions, was given go ahead signal. This move necessitated in the wake of a fake drugs case unearthed in the State. He submits that JKMSCL, being an undertaking of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, is a Nodal Agency for procurement of Drugs, Medicines, Surgical and Sutures and Equipment for Government Medical Institutions in the State. The procurement of drugs and medicine, surgical and sutures is done on the request of Project Directors and Head of the Departments and JKMSCL is to act as Central Procurement Agency for all essential drugs and equipments for all Government healthcare institutions and to purchase, set up, or otherwise procure and to sell, supply, distribute or deliver all kinds and varieties of generic and patent medicines, both allopathic, ayurvedic, homeopathic, veterinary or other system of medicines, medical supplies, surgical accessories, hospital equipments, machineries, furniture, vehicles or other facilities to various medical colleges, District health centres or other such institutions under Ministry of Health and Medical Education Government of J&K or other State or central government departments/institutions or to institutions under private sector and to the general public, or to outsource or act as agent for outsourcing such supplies, equipments, instruments or other facilities on behalf of such institutions. He as well contends that JKMSCL is to set up, run and maintain all kinds of modern Medical and Para medical or medical based ancillary facilities in hospitals, pathological labs, diagnostic centers, X-ray/scanning facilities, medical shops, canteen facilities, pay wards and such other facilities adjacent to aforesaid institutions or elsewhere so as to provide facilities of excellence, expertise and quality required by patients and others visiting or using the facilities of the aforesaid institutions. In view of this policy decision, it was seen that ISM Department did not care to place indents in right earnest to JKMSCL for timely procurements and the whole issue was unnecessarily delayed, which was a matter of grave concern and considering the fact that only five months of the financial year remained, approval for procurement was given in the interest of patient care and to ensure timely availability of medicine, which was followed by supply letter dated 8th November 2016. However, according to learned counsel for respondents, Vigilance Organisation Jammu (VOJ) vide No. VO-JSC-JMU-7/16-15842-44, dated 18th November 2016 intimated that 11 samples of medicines, lifted by VOJ from some ISM institutions, were sent for testing to NABL Laboratories and test reports of five medicines out of 11 were received, which were found substandard and severely infested with fungus/pathogen and not fit for human consumption. In consequence, various instructions and orders were received on 25th November 2016, including enquiry Committee constituted vide Govt. Order No. 616-HME of 2016, dated 25th November 2016, to go into all procedures and processes followed for procuring medicine by ISM Department and steps adopted to ensure quality of medicines during procurement; that the then Director General, ISM, was attached with Administrative Department pending enquiry; that Health and Medical Education Department vide No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 25th November 2016 withdrew/cancelled its earlier letter No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 27th October 2016, by virtue whereof approval was conveyed to ISM Department for procuring medicines up to 31st March 2017 and it was also directed that all future procurement of ISM drugs and medicines must be made through JKMSCL after ensuring quality and all codal formalities; that after drugs, found unfit for human consumption as intimated by VOJ, vide communication dated 18th November 2016, were withdrawn from all peripheral institutions and instruction in this regard was issued to doctors not to prescribe the same. 17. The instant case has its genesis to the date, the e-Tender Notices (NITs) had been issued by respondent department. What are contents of the NITs in question, are imperative for determination of present controversy. e-Tender Notice No. DISM/Medicines/01 of 2016, provides that if any bidder wants any kind of clarification regarding the terms and conditions as laid down in the tender document or submission of technical bid in response to the said NIT, the bidder can contact office of Member Secretary, Purchase Committee, Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine, J & K, during office hours and after fixed date, no application for enquiry shall be entertained. Following are relevant terms and conditions of NIT in question: "1. The tenderer should be a registered supplier of Health & Medical Education Department/Directorate General Indian Systems of Medicine, J & K. 3. The tenderer shall carefully examine the conditions i.e. specification, formulations etc. Following are relevant terms and conditions of NIT in question: "1. The tenderer should be a registered supplier of Health & Medical Education Department/Directorate General Indian Systems of Medicine, J & K. 3. The tenderer shall carefully examine the conditions i.e. specification, formulations etc. before signing the contract and in case of doubts, if any, get the clarification from the office of the Member Secretary, Purchase Committee........... 6. The department reserves the right to accept any tender not necessarily the lowest tender and reject any tender without assigning any reason there for. Orders can be placed for the whole or part of the quantity of medicine tendered for, is at the discretion of the department. 10. Accepting and rejection of the tender: (C) In case the goods are not of approved quality, quantity & make according to the approved sample, they shall be rejected/destroyed & same will be arranged at the risk & cost of the supplier. The rejected supply shall have to be lifted by the supplier immediately at his own cost, failing which the disposal of the rejected supply will be made by the Department and expenses so incurred will be deducted from the Security Deposit/earnest money of the tenderer, lying with the department. 14. Laboratory Test of samples/supply: (A) Random testing can be done by the Directorate General of Indian Systems of Medicine J & K from any Laboratory............ (B) Partial Payment will be released only till the satisfactory testing report regarding the drug contents and other laid down standards/norms is received from the NABL accredited laboratory/Deptt. of Ayush Approved laboratory or Govt. of India approved laboratory after deducting the actual fee of test, when the remaining payment can be made. (C) Each and every medicines to be quoted by the firm should have a test report from NABL or Govt. of India approved Laboratory/Department of Ayush showing the level of heavy metals present in the product i.e. whether the level of heavy metals present in the medicines is within the admissible limits. Copy of accreditation/approval certificate of the laboratory testing samples of medicine must be enclosed with the technical bid........... 15. All the terms & conditions of NIT shall also form the part of supply order & agreement. 24. Copy of accreditation/approval certificate of the laboratory testing samples of medicine must be enclosed with the technical bid........... 15. All the terms & conditions of NIT shall also form the part of supply order & agreement. 24. The approved firm should ensure immediate supplies, once supply order is placed with them and they are bound to supply material strictly as per the terms & conditions approved by the Committee. If at any state it is found that material supplied by the firms is not according to the approval of Purchase Committee, the action warranted under rules/as deemed fit will be taken against the firm after rejecting the supplies. 28. The successful tenderer shall have to execute an agreement in the prescribed form with the purchase officer concerned. 30. All the items supplied shall be of the best quality, specification, trade mark and in accordance with the approved standards, catalogue, and samples if provided. In case of any drug/item supplied, not being so approved, same shall be liable to be rejected or replaced and any expenses as a result of rejection or replacement of supplies shall be entirely at the cost of tenderer. 32. In case of any dispute/difference or doubts between the Directorate General Indian Systems of Medicine, J & K and the approved suppliers arises, the orders of the "Convener of the committee" shall be final. 34. Any other condition that is not indicated here can be incorporated in the supply order or agreement before execution of a contract if need be. 39. No guarantee can be given as to the number of quantity of stores which will be ordered during the period of agreement. No undertaking can also be given that any quality will be purchased at all. The purchaser reserves the right for placing agreement simultaneously at any time during the contract with one or more contractors as they may think fit or containing from any source stores referred to in the schedule to meet their requirement during the period of agreement." From the above passage, it becomes known that respondent department reserves right to reject tender, supply order or supplies at any stage of the contract. Not only this, respondent department also reserves right to make supply orders in the name of other suppliers/contractors, or for that matter place indent with JKMSCL, during currency of contract with an approved supplier/contractor. Not only this, respondent department also reserves right to make supply orders in the name of other suppliers/contractors, or for that matter place indent with JKMSCL, during currency of contract with an approved supplier/contractor. In case of any dispute or difference or doubts between respondent department and approved supplier(s), the orders of Convener of the Committee shall be final. Thus, respondent department, at the first stage of tendering process, has made it clear upon participants of tender, including present petitioners, that respondent department can during existence of contract in question, place supply orders with and in favour of other contractors/suppliers. And in case any dispute, difference or doubts between respondent department and supplier or suppliers arises, the orders of the Convener of the Committee shall be final. Therefore, petitioners are bound by terms and conditions of NIT, once they responded thereto and partook in tender process and accepted and acted on the terms and conditions contained therein. If they would have been aggrieved or dissatisfied with any of conditions of NIT, they at that very moment could have complained of that, but they remained contented thereto, by responding thereto, by partaking in tendering process and by securing contracts, obviously, on terms and conditions that had been put in place by respondent department in NITs and subsequently in supply order(s). 18. This was one aspect of the matter. The second facet of the matter is Supply Order(s) issued by respondent department in favour of petitioners and conditions contained therein. As respondents refer to in their reply, that their counsel as well has fervently reiterated during course of argumentation, that Clause 16 of Supply Order(s) has important role to play. It stipulates: "16. All other issues/disputes that may arise during the course of supply between the supplier and purchaser shall be decided by the Purchasing Committee for Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine, J & K, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties. Any other conditions not indicated herein can be incorporated in the supply order or agreement at any point of time if need arises, which will be binding on the parties." 19. Clause 16 of Supply Order is in furtherance of Clause 32 of NIT, with additional condition(s). Any other conditions not indicated herein can be incorporated in the supply order or agreement at any point of time if need arises, which will be binding on the parties." 19. Clause 16 of Supply Order is in furtherance of Clause 32 of NIT, with additional condition(s). Clause 32 of NIT stipulates that in case any dispute, difference or doubt between respondent department and suppliers arises, the orders in that regard shall be passed by the Convener of the Committee, which shall be final. Thus, if petitioner or for that matter any manufacturer raises any dispute, difference or doubt, contractor/supplier has to fall back on the remedy made available to aggrieved contractor/supplier under and in terms of aforesaid condition. And insofar as Clause 16 of Supply Order is concerned, by that it has been specifically made clear that all other issues/disputes that may arise during the course of supply between supplier and purchaser shall be decided by Purchasing Committee for respondent department, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties. Besides this, it has also been made clear in terms of Clause 16 of Supply Order that any other condition, not indicated in the Supply Order, can also be incorporated by respondent department in the supply order or agreement at any point of time, which will be binding on the parties. This is an important aspect of the matter. Petitioner has acted on the Supply Order and made supplies to the Department and even according to learned counsel for petitioner, payment has been made in respect of first Supply Order, which contains condition in the form of Clause 16, giving all rights to respondent department to incorporate any other condition, if not indicated in the supply order; subsequently if respondent department felt need of incorporation of such condition and such condition shall be binding on the parties. In such circumstances petitioners' gravamen as regards incorporation of Clause 16-A is without any meat and substance and respondents' decision qua incorporation of any clause, that includes Clause 16-A is in sync with terms and conditions of NIT and Supply Order(s). 20. Qua rejection of tenders or withdrawal of supply order(s), is reservation of right therefore respondent department possess and/or indication or disclosure of such right coming forth from tender/supply order. Glance of NITs in question depicts Terms and Conditions laid down by respondent department while inviting tenders from eligible manufacturers. 20. Qua rejection of tenders or withdrawal of supply order(s), is reservation of right therefore respondent department possess and/or indication or disclosure of such right coming forth from tender/supply order. Glance of NITs in question depicts Terms and Conditions laid down by respondent department while inviting tenders from eligible manufacturers. Clause 6 of Terms and Conditions of NITs, as reproduced herein above as well, provides respondent department reserving right to accept any tender, not necessarily the lowest tender, and reject any tender without assigning any reason and also respondent department having discretion to place orders for whole or part of quantity of medicine tendered for. Clause 10(C) stipulates rejection/destroying of goods/medicines if not of quality, quantity and make according to approved sample. Clause 14(A) is as regards random testing could be done by respondent department of supply. Drugs/medicines supplied, in terms of Clause 14(F) should bear batch-wise quality analysis report from approved laboratory and there should be an undertaking from supplier as to genuineness, purity of ingredients of the product and also to the effect that the manufacturer/firm shall be responsible for quality of product in all respects. Respondent department in NIT proceeds further ahead by indicating and signifying at Clause 24 that if at any stage it is found that material supplied by the firms is not according to approval of Purchase Committee, the action warranted under rules/as deemed fit will be taken against the firm after rejecting the supplies. Here respondent department has kept reserve right in itself to reject supplies if it is found that material supplied by the firms is not according to the approval of the Purchase Committee. Again at Clause 27 of NIT, it has been stipulated that successful tenderer is to supply material according to specifications of the material as specified in supply order and as per the sample approved by the Committee and in case of any default the earnest money shall be forfeited and the firm will be debarred from participating in tendering in future. Worth to be seen is Clause 39 of NIT. In this Clause, respondent department has kept itself free to enter into agreement simultaneously during contract with one or more contractors as it may think fit or containing from any source stores to meet its requirement during the period of agreement. Worth to be seen is Clause 39 of NIT. In this Clause, respondent department has kept itself free to enter into agreement simultaneously during contract with one or more contractors as it may think fit or containing from any source stores to meet its requirement during the period of agreement. Not only this, respondent department also makes it clear to the tenderers that no guarantee can be given as to the number of quantity of stores which will be ordered during the period of agreement and no undertaking will be given that any quantity will be purchased at all. In other words, respondent department has kept itself at leisure and not to foist itself in issuing supply order(s) in favour of successful tenderer/supplier(s). These were some of the terms and conditions of NIT, by which respondent department has reserved rights in itself to either supply or not to supply and/or even cancel/withdraw supply order(s). In NIT again respondent department has pointed a condition that in case any dispute, difference or doubts between respondent department and approved suppliers arises, same shall be taken care of by the Convener of the Committee and whose decision and orders shall be final. Petitioners and other manufacturers, after going through these terms and conditions of NITs in question, responded thereto, participated in tendering process and secured supply orders. In such circumstances, they are bound by their own acts and acquiescence. From the pleadings that petitioners have brought before this Court, it is not mentioned or projected by petitioners that they at any point of time during tendering process approached respondent department objecting against any of the terms and conditions reflected in NITs in question. 21. After this, is Supply Order(s), that has/have been issued by respondent department in favour of successful suppliers. Allow are relevant terms and conditions of supply order(s): "1. No part supply will be accepted against placed quantity of supply order nor the supply will be accepted much earlier than the date of delivery given in the supply order. 2. The acceptance of supply so ordered will be subject to fulfillment of terms & conditions regarding eligibility, security deposit etc. as already envisaged in NIT.........and do attach authenticated documents of each point with balance amount of CDR/FDR if any due. 7. The quantity of supply ordered of any item can be increased or decreased............ 16. 2. The acceptance of supply so ordered will be subject to fulfillment of terms & conditions regarding eligibility, security deposit etc. as already envisaged in NIT.........and do attach authenticated documents of each point with balance amount of CDR/FDR if any due. 7. The quantity of supply ordered of any item can be increased or decreased............ 16. All other issues/disputes that may arise during the course of supply between the supplier and purchaser shall be decided by the Purchasing Committee for Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine, J & K, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties. Any other condition not indicated can be incorporated in the supply order or agreement at any point of time if need arises, which will be binding on the parties. 18. The supplier is wholly & solely responsible, in case at any stage, after random testing of any medicine/item, it has been found/proved/detected/established that the supplies made/issued by the firm/agency/supplier etc. is defective/spurious/sub-standard/not fit for human consumption or not up to the standard specification basis, the entire supply shall be replaced by concerned agency at their cost without any additional payments from State exchequer or entire cost of the supplies including overhead expenses incurred by the Department be refunded by the firm agency/supplier in lump sum in State exchequer. Besides penalty or any other legal action under rules will also be taken against defaulting agency which may include black listing of firm and even forfeiture of CDR shall be imposed upon the firm. This will also form a part of condition of agreement to be executed with the Department by the firm/agency/supplier." Again respondent department, in Supply Order(s), has indicated that it reserves right to reject, cancel or withdraw supply order(s). Respondent department while indicating so, made also it clear to suppliers that more conditions can be incorporated in the supply order or agreement at any point of time, which will be binding on the parties. Respondents in support of their impugned action, vehemently insist that remedy for grievance of petitioners, if any, cannot be adjudicated in extra an ordinary writ jurisdiction inasmuch as the Terms and Conditions of NIT as also Supply Order furnish alternative remedy available for redressal of dispute. Respondents in support of their impugned action, vehemently insist that remedy for grievance of petitioners, if any, cannot be adjudicated in extra an ordinary writ jurisdiction inasmuch as the Terms and Conditions of NIT as also Supply Order furnish alternative remedy available for redressal of dispute. And according to respondents, and rightly so, mandamus cannot be issued for enforcement of private rights, for, rights of parties, who have entered into a contract, fall under the domain of private law regardless of the fact whether contract has been entered into by two private individuals or by an individual, on the one hand, and the State, on the other hand and that when a contract agreement provides for arbitration, the remedy of aggrieved party lies in obtaining necessary relief by taking resort to arbitration and not by public law remedy, such as, writ of mandamus and that the power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes and that tenderer with grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. This Court is in agreement with the submission of respondents inasmuch as it is settled law that disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for enforcing contractual rights and obligation, remedy of filing a civil suit is available to aggrieved party and hence this Court will not exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction to enforce such contractual rights or obligations. A writ or direction in the nature of mandamus does not, therefore, lie to enforce private rights or contractual rights or obligations or even to avoid such obligation or rights. The contract, in the present case, is purely contractual and governed by terms and conditions of the contract, thus, cannot be enforced by any writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of these observations I may refer to discussions made herein after. 22. Let me, now, ascertain the exactitude of discussions hereinabove. While considering writ petitions on hand, what needs to be noted, is that a governmental contract, even if commercial in nature, involves, broadly speaking, four stages. 23. The first stage relates to floating of tenders by publishing notice inviting tenders. 22. Let me, now, ascertain the exactitude of discussions hereinabove. While considering writ petitions on hand, what needs to be noted, is that a governmental contract, even if commercial in nature, involves, broadly speaking, four stages. 23. The first stage relates to floating of tenders by publishing notice inviting tenders. At this stage, authority concerned is to formulate terms and conditions, subject to which tenders would be invited and also terms and conditions of contract, which, if entered into, govern the parties. These terms and conditions will obviously include all eligibility criteria for a person to partake in tender process. After notice inviting tender is published and tenders are received, the second stage of such a contract commences. This stage involves process of taking of decision to allot contract or not to allot the contract at all and cancel entire process. This stage would include selection of a person or a party, to whom contract shall be allotted. This stage ends with allotment of contract or with a decision not to allot the contract at all and cancel entire tender process. The third stage of contract essentially covers stage of performance of the contract. This stage would include commencement of performance of allotted contract and would, normally, end with the completion of allotted contract. During this stage, there may arise the question of breach of contract, because of non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of contract by either party to the contract. Fourth stage of such a contract arises, when, on completion of his part of contract, the contractor or supplier raises his demand for making payment of his bills. This fourth stage can, however, be divided into two categories. There may be a case, where the amount demanded is not disputed and yet the dues of contractor are not paid compelling him to seek avenues for obtaining payment of his dues. In this fourth stage, there may, however, be a case, where correctness of demand for payment raised by contractor is disputed, denied or challenged by authority, who had allotted the contract. In such a case, too, contractor may be driven to take recourse to such avenues as may be open to him, in law, for purpose of enabling him to obtain his dues in terms of demand that he may have made. 24. In such a case, too, contractor may be driven to take recourse to such avenues as may be open to him, in law, for purpose of enabling him to obtain his dues in terms of demand that he may have made. 24. It may, now, be pointed out that at first stage of a contract, which requires authorities concerned to formulate terms and conditions, subject to which tenders would be invited or contract would be allotted, many factors are taken into account. The decision as to what terms shall be included in tender, is really a policy decision, for, it is the authority, issuing notice inviting tender(s), which is the best judge to determine as to what terms and conditions would be required for successful completion of the work or the project concerned. Thus, it is, primarily, for the authority, issuing NIT, to decide what particular terms and conditions should be incorporated in NIT and/or subsequently during course of execution of contract work. However, when invitation to tender is floated, second stage, consisting of process of selection of a person for awarding contract, commences and this process comes to an end, when a decision either awarding contract or cancelling entire tender process is taken. The decision to award contract is not open to judicial review; but the decision making process, which leads to ultimate decision, is open to judicial review as observed by the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 . Though the decision, to award a contract, is not open to judicial review, decision-making process, as made clear by the Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. v. IVR Construction Ltd. & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 492 , that leads to ultimate decision, is, indeed, open to judicial review, provided that there is an element of public interest involved in the case requiring a review by the court of administrative decision to allot the contract. 25. To put it differently, while settling the terms and conditions to be incorporated in the invitation to tender, the authorities concerned must have complete freedom, for, the terms and conditions of tender are in the realm of freedom to contract and it is for authorities concerned to decide as to what would be terms and conditions of contract. 25. To put it differently, while settling the terms and conditions to be incorporated in the invitation to tender, the authorities concerned must have complete freedom, for, the terms and conditions of tender are in the realm of freedom to contract and it is for authorities concerned to decide as to what would be terms and conditions of contract. But when authorities concerned award the contract, the decision making process, leading to decision to allot contract, gets open to judicial review provided that there is an element of public interest involved in the case. The question, however, which arises for consideration is this: If any of terms and conditions embodied in an NIT is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, irrational, whimsical, capricious or actuated by bias, whether the hands of the High Court would be tied and the High Court would, in exercise of its power of judicial review, refuse to interfere with the terms and conditions of NIT howsoever arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, whimsical, capricious or biased the terms and conditions may be? While considering the said aspect of the case, it may be pointed out that in Tata Cellular case (supra), reiterated in plethora of decisions, the Apex Court has observed that the terms and conditions of invitation to tender are not open to judicial review, for, the invitation to tender is in the realm of freedom to contract. 26. What may be further noted is that at the first and the second stage of the contracts, when the government or any of its instrumentalities sets up the terms and conditions of the contract or takes a decision to allot the contract, it acts purely in its executive capacity and its action is, therefore, open to judicial review, though in a limited way, as indicated hereinabove. However, when the third stage is reached and a contract is entered into by the government or its instrumentality, on the one hand, and the contractor, on the other, the parties are no longer governed by Constitutional provisions, but by the terms of the contract. Hence, when a State, purporting to act within the field allotted to it under the terms and conditions of a contract, performs an act, the rights and obligations of the parties would be, ordinarily, governed by the law that governs the terms and conditions of the contract. Hence, when a State, purporting to act within the field allotted to it under the terms and conditions of a contract, performs an act, the rights and obligations of the parties would be, ordinarily, governed by the law that governs the terms and conditions of the contract. The mere fact that one of the parties to such a contract is the State or its instrumentality will not make a contract amenable to writ jurisdiction. 27. What logically follows from the above discussion is that in the third stage, which consists of the performance of the contract, the remedy of the parties to the contract for breach of any of the terms and conditions of the contract would, ordinarily, lie in the civil court of competent jurisdiction unless the parties have, under the terms of the contract, agreed to refer such a dispute to arbitration. Thus, no writ would be issued, under Article 226, for a mere breach of the terms and conditions of the contract, particularly, when, for settlement of such a dispute, there is a provision for arbitration or remedy available. 28. In case of breach of contract, holding remedy under Article 226 is not appropriate, for, a writ of mandamus, under Article 226, is issued for enforcing public duty and not a private duty. 29. Before proceeding further, what may be noted is that a writ of mandamus is a public remedy and this remedy lies, when a public authority fails to perform the duty entrusted to it by law. In other words, a writ is issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed or neglected to do so. Distinguishing a case, wherein a public duty of a State is sought to be enforced, and a case, wherein a contractual obligation of a State is sought to be enforced, Professor Wade, in his well-known treatise, 'Administrative Law', makes it clear that while a public duty is enforceable by public law remedy of a writ of mandamus, a contractual duty is enforceable, as a matter of private law, through the avenues of civil courts. The observations made, in this regard, by Professor Wade read, thus: "...A distinction which needs to be clarified is that between public duties enforceable by mandamus, which are usually statutory and duties arising merely from contract. The observations made, in this regard, by Professor Wade read, thus: "...A distinction which needs to be clarified is that between public duties enforceable by mandamus, which are usually statutory and duties arising merely from contract. Contractual duties are enforceable as matters of private laws by the ordinary contractual remedies, such as damages, injunction, specific performance and declaration. They are not enforceable by mandamus, which in the first place is confined to public duties and secondly is not granted where there are other adequate remedies." 30. What, now, needs to be noted is that howsoever thin and subtle may be, there is, indeed, a real and definite line of demarcation not only between a public wrong and a private wrong, but also between a public law remedy and private law remedy. Article 226 is pre-eminently a public law remedy and is not, generally, available as a remedy against private wrongs. Resort to Article 226 can be had to enforce various rights of public or to compel public or statutory authorities to discharge their public duties and/or to act, in realm of their public functions, within bounds of law. The remedy under Article 226 can, no doubt, be availed of even against a private body or person, but scope of right of mandamus is limited to enforcement of public duty. In minimum possible words, but with extreme exactitude, clarified the Supreme Court, in Binny Ltd. & Anr. v. Sadasivan & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 657 , the position of law, in this regard, in these words: "29. Thus, it can be seen that a writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is pre-eminently a public law remedy and is not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs. It is used for enforcement of various rights of the public or to compel public/statutory authorities to discharge their duties and to act within their bounds. It may be used to do justice when there is wrongful exercise of power or a refusal to perform duties. This writ is admirably equipped to serve as a judicial control over administrative actions. This writ could also be issued against any private body or person, specially in view of the words used in Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the scope of mandamus is limited to enforcement of public duty. This writ is admirably equipped to serve as a judicial control over administrative actions. This writ could also be issued against any private body or person, specially in view of the words used in Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the scope of mandamus is limited to enforcement of public duty. The scope of mandamus is determined by the nature of the duty to be enforced, rather than the identity of the authority against whom it is sought. If the private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any right is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial, but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action." 31. Thus, in the face of succinctly laid down position of law qua issuance of a writ of mandamus under Article 226, what one has to bear in mind, is that in a case of private wrong, in order to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, (i) the identity of the person, against whom the writ is sought, as a person or body, which is amenable to writ jurisdiction, and (ii) the nature of duty, which is sought to be enforced, is a public duty or has an element of public interest. In a given case, one may, perhaps, ignore the first pre-requisite, namely, the identity of the person or body as a person or body amenable to writ jurisdiction, but the second pre-requisite, as indicated hereinbefore, cannot be ignored, for, in the absence of public interest or in the absence of breach of public duty or in the absence of any public wrong having been committed, no recourse to Article 226 is possible. 32. What also needs to be cautiously noted is that a constitutional or statutory duty is a public duty and enforceable by a writ of mandamus. To put in differently, the rights and duties go hand-in-hand. When a right is given to a person by a State, the State cast upon itself a duty to enforce such a right. Logically, therefore, when a person is given fundamental right by the Constitution, a duty rests on the State to ensure that the person realizes his fundamental rights. To put in differently, the rights and duties go hand-in-hand. When a right is given to a person by a State, the State cast upon itself a duty to enforce such a right. Logically, therefore, when a person is given fundamental right by the Constitution, a duty rests on the State to ensure that the person realizes his fundamental rights. In a given case, therefore, if a person, aggrieved by a breach of contract, shows that though the breach is in the realm of a contract, the duty sought to be enforced, is a constitutional or statutory duty, the remedy of a writ of mandamus may not be refused, for, it is the constitutional obligation of the High Court, under Article 226, to enforce the constitutional and statutory duties of the State and its instrumentalities. 33. The present set of writ petitions essentially raise a demand for continuation of contract and beseech a writ, in the nature of mandamus, forcing the State to allow petitioners to continue supplies as per supply orders and prohibit respondent No. 1 from shifting funds allocated under Central Sponsored Scheme to purchase Indian System of Medicines to any other Corporation or authority whatsoever. 34. The question raised, is as to whether such a demand can be raised at all in a writ petition and be enforced by a writ to be issued in the nature of mandamus. Is it possible to foist respondent department to allow supplies to be made as per the withdrawn/cancelled supply orders, arising out of a contract by invoking writ jurisdiction, merely because of the fact that one of the parties to the contract is a State. 35. The question of contractual obligations cannot, as a rule, be gone into in writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court, e.g. termination of a contract under the terms of the contract. The State acts purely in its executive capacity at the stage of entry into the field when it chooses persons with whom it could contract, and is bound by the obligations which dealing of the State with individual citizens import into every transaction entered into in exercise of its constitutional powers. The State acts purely in its executive capacity at the stage of entry into the field when it chooses persons with whom it could contract, and is bound by the obligations which dealing of the State with individual citizens import into every transaction entered into in exercise of its constitutional powers. However, after the State or its agents have entered into the field of ordinary contract, the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the contracts, which would determine the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. In this sphere, they can only claim rights conferred upon them by contract and are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract only. Ordinarily a court will not in its writ jurisdiction enforce the terms and conditions of a contract. In commercial contracts, the breach of contract can be properly adjudicated in a civil suit and not in a writ petition; a civil suit is the proper remedy when disputed questions of interpretation of contract or of facts are involved, as also where the contract provides for alternate remedy. 36. What emerges from the above discussion is that the remedy, available under Article 226, is an extraordinary remedy and is not intended for the purpose of declaring private rights of the parties. For the purpose of enforcing contractual rights and obligations, the remedy of filing of a civil suit is available to the aggrieved party and, hence, a High Court will not exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction to enforce such contractual rights or obligations. A writ or direction in the nature of mandamus would not, therefore, lie to enforce private rights or contractual rights or obligations or even to avoid such obligations or rights. Contracts, which are non-statutory, and the rights, which are purely contractual and governed only by the terms of the contract, cannot be enforced by any writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Same is true about the present case. 37. Further to point out here that a provision in a contract entered into between the parties authorised the Government to terminate contract without any notice and without payment of any compensation. It was held that the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 could not interfere, if the Government, in fact, did terminate the contract without affording a right of hearing to affected party. It was held that the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 could not interfere, if the Government, in fact, did terminate the contract without affording a right of hearing to affected party. Infringement of such a contractual right could not be seen as a breach of any fundamental right and it could be remedied by institution of a civil suit in an ordinary civil court of competent jurisdiction. There is formidable array of authorities, which may be referred to in this regard: Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation v. Indian Rocks (2009) 1 SCC 150 ; ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India (2004) 3 SCC 553 ; DFO South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh (1973) 3 SCC 864; CK Achutan v. State of Kerala AIR 1959 SC 490 ; Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 1496 ; Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Escorts Ltd. AIR 1986 SC 1370 ; Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 2007 SC 119 ; Divisional Forest Officer v. Biswanath Tea Co. Ltd. (1981) 3 SCC 238 ; State Bank of Haryana v. Jage Ram AIR 1980 SC 2018 . 38. The case in hand is somehow akin to case Risan Sehkari Chini Mills & Ors. v. Vardan Linkers & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 500 . This case unequivocally enlightens the approach, which the High Court will have in such a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, dealing with arguments predicated on contractual aspects. In that case there were six State controlled sugar mills in Uttaranchal State producing molasses. Sale of molasses by them was controlled by the Molasses Sale Committee (MSC) constituted by the State Government. A tender notice was published inviting offers from bona fide consumers for purchase of molasses from the other five sugar mills. The tenders were to be submitted in accordance with the conditions specified in the tender notice. The proceedings in regard to the tenders received culminated in an order permitting respondent therein to lift 85,000 quintals of molasses from the five sugar mills at a price of Rs. 127 per quintal. Around that time, the State Government received several reports that the prevailing price of molasses was much higher. The Secretary, Cane Development and Sugar Industries (Secretary (Sugar), therefore, stayed the operation of ACC's order. 127 per quintal. Around that time, the State Government received several reports that the prevailing price of molasses was much higher. The Secretary, Cane Development and Sugar Industries (Secretary (Sugar), therefore, stayed the operation of ACC's order. The respondent then approached the High Court by a writ petition seeking a direction for continuance of supply of the entire quantity of 85,000 quintals of molasses to it. By an interim order, the High Court directed the State Government to decide the respondent's claim after hearing the respondent. Pending such decision, the High Court permitted respondent to lift up to 20,000 quintals of molasses. After hearing respondent, Secretary (Sugar) held that there was no valid contract for supply of molasses to the first respondent and that, therefore, the allotment letter was issued without any authority and cancelled it. Aggrieved by the interim order of the High Court, appellants approached the Supreme Court which set aside that interim order and permitted respondent to amend writ petition to challenge order of Secretary (Sugar). The respondent amended its writ petition. During hearing, certain disputed facts cropped up. The High Court called the managers of two of the sugar mills and put some questions to them and recorded their statements. The High Court reached the conclusion that there was a concluded contract between the five sugar mills and the respondent for sale of 85,000 quintals of molasses at a price of Rs. 127 per quintal. Thereafter, it held that having regard to doctrines of part performance, legitimate expectation, estoppel and acquiescence, the cancellation of the allotment letter was unsustainable. Therefore, the High Court quashed the order of the Secretary (Sugar) and directed that the respondent should be allowed to lift 85,000 quintals of molasses less the quantity already lifted. The said judgment of the High Court was challenged in the appeals. The questions before the Supreme Court were: (i) Whether the High Court was right in concluding/assuming that there was a valid contract? And (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order of the Secretary (Sugar)? The Supreme Court answered the said questions in negative and set aside the judgment of the High Court holding that ordinarily, the remedy available for a party complaining of breach of contract lies for seeking damages. He would be entitled to the relief of specific performance, if the contract was capable of being specifically enforced in law. The Supreme Court answered the said questions in negative and set aside the judgment of the High Court holding that ordinarily, the remedy available for a party complaining of breach of contract lies for seeking damages. He would be entitled to the relief of specific performance, if the contract was capable of being specifically enforced in law. The remedies for a breach of contract being purely in the realm of contract are dealt with by civil courts. The public law remedy, by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not available to seek damages for breach of contract or specific performance of contract. It is clear that the aforesaid case is closest to the facts of the present case. It thus stands crystallised that by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, only public law remedy can be invoked. As far as contractual dispute is concerned that is outside the power of judicial review under Article 226. Wherefore, impugned decision of respondent department, in the present case, is not arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide and further doctrine of promissory estoppel has no application in the present fact situation, as such. 39. The upshot of aforesaid discourse would be to hold that there is no merit in writ petitions on hand. 40. After making above sumptuous discussions, another important issue to be deliberated upon is whether funds can be shifted by ISM Department to J & K Medical Supplies Corporation Ltd., as is also one of the implored reliefs of petitioners in their writ petitions, by writ of prohibition, restraining Respondent No. 1 from shifting the funds for purchase of medicines to any other corporation or authority. Reply filed by respondents, annexures appended thereto and reiterated by their counsel as well, reveal that Jammu and Kashmir Medical Supplies Corporation Ltd. (JKMSCL) has been established by Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir on the pattern of Tamil Nadu Medical Supplies Corporation, with an aim and objective to ensure transparency, fairness and quality of medicines and that the corporation was established in the year 2013 in he larger public interest, vide Government Order No. 329-HME of 2013, dated 22nd May 2013 pursuant to the Cabinet Decision No. 130/15/2013, dated 21st May 2013 on the model of Tamil Nadu Medical Supplies Corporation (TNMSC), for procurement of drugs, medicines and medical equipment, etc. in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the Department of Health and Medical Education Department. JKMSCL is mandated to make procurements and supplies for entire Health and Medical Education Departmentally and respondent department is one of the wings of Health & Medical Education Department. Though Directorate of ISM, Directorate of Health Services, GMC Srinagar, GMC Jammu, Drug & Food Control Organisation, etc. are separate wings, yet all are under administrative control of Health & Medical Education Department and the funds meant for these separate Directorates/organisations, are provided to them through Administrative Department and that there is no question of diversion from one Directorate to other. Assiduous efforts are said to have been made for last more than one decade to satiate long cherished dream of public to have such an independent organisation for procurement and Government has asked ISM Department to send requisition/indent to JKMSCL for procurement. By doing so, as said by respondents, none of rights of petitioner has been infringed. As regards the present issue of diversion of funds, JKMSCL is said to have no role in respondent department and as a matter of fact JKSMCL has been established as a procurement agency for whole Health and Medical Education Department. 41. Record on file further reveals that in view of policy decision, it was seen that ISM Department did not care to place indents in right earnest to JKMSCL for timely procurements and the whole issue was unnecessarily delayed, which was a matter of grave concern and considering the fact that only five months of the financial year had remained, approval for procurement was given in the interest of patient care and to ensure timely availability of medicine, which was followed by supply letter dated 8th November 2016. However, Vigilance Organisation Jammu (VOJ) vide letter No. VO-SC-JMU-7/16-15842-44, dated 18th November 2016, (Annexure R-5 to Reply), intimated that consequent upon a Joint Surprise Check, the probe was being conducted by Vigilance Organisation Jammu and during probe, scientific analysis of about eleven samples out of total taken from different dispensaries/stores of ISM Department District Jammu, Samba and Kathua, had been got conducted through an NABL accredited laboratory, outside the State, and as per the laboratory test reports five samples had been found substandard and severely infested with fungus/pathogen, rendering these drugs/medicines unfit for human consumption. Vigilance Organisation Jammu sought appropriate action vis-a-vis public distribution of these medicines. Vigilance Organisation Jammu sought appropriate action vis-a-vis public distribution of these medicines. In view of purchase of sub-standard drugs by ISM Department, sanction was accorded vide Govt. Order No. 616-HME of 2016 dated 25th November 2016, (Annexure R-6) to constitution of Enquiry Committee to go into all procedures and processes, followed for procurement of medicine by ISM Wing of Health and Medical Education Department during 2016-17 by Directorate of ISM, J & K, and the steps taken/procedures adopted for ensuring quality of medicines during procurement. Not only this, pending inquiry into the matter related to purchase of substandard drugs in Directorate of Indian System of Medicine, the then Director General, ISM, vide Govt. Order No. 1310-GAD of 2016, dated 25th November 2016, issued by General Administration Department, J & K Government, was attached with Health & Medical Education Department (Administrative Department). Health and Medical Education Department vide No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 25th November 2016 (Annexure R-6 to Reply) withdrew/cancelled its earlier letter No. HD/ISM/95/2016, dated 27th October 2016, by virtue of which approval was conveyed to ISM Department for procurement of medicines up to 31st March 2017 and it was also directed that all future procurement of ISM drugs and medicines must be made through JKMSCL after ensuring quality and all codal procedures. 42. It becomes clear that to purchase ISM drugs and medicines through JKMSCL is a policy decision of the J & K State Government and the said policy decision has been taken for public interest. It may not be out of place to mention here that we must not forget that in complex matters, like instant one, every decision is necessarily empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call 'trial and error method' and, therefore, its validity cannot be tested on any rigid 'a priori' considerations or on the application of any straitjacket formula. The Court must while adjudging the constitutional validity of an executive decision relating to complex matter or the matter like one in the present case, grant a certain measure of freedom to play in the joints to the Executive and the Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. 43. 43. In my opinion, having regard to the fact that probe/enquiries are underway, the extent of involvement of manufacturers will get known, only on conclusion of the probe/enquiries. Therefore, at this stage, what has to be seen is that, is there enough basis for respondents to take a decision not to continue with the contract it entered into with petitioners and other manufacturers. The decision in this behalf would be entirely that of the respondents, i.e., the State. The courts under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere only if it is a case where there is no material at all or is a case of breach of principles of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction. The adequacy of material does not fall within the scope of consideration of the court. The State is free to take the stand that it will not engage with petitioners and manufacturers. Surely this Court, exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226, will not interdict this decision of respondents and foist them to continue a relationship, which it has terminated in terms impugned decision. The argument that these are only allegations and none of these allegations are linked to petitioners, inasmuch as petitioners are not named anywhere in the probe/enquiries being conducted by Vigilance Organisation Jammu, cannot be fully grappled with in the midst of a probe/enquiries. The material presently available with respondents would, to my mind, provide strong justification for respondents to say that it does not wish to continue to deal with petitioners, more particularly in view of shift in policy by establishing JKMSCL as Nodal Agency of J & K State for procurement of all goods, material, drugs and medicines for Government Hospitals/institutions. In addition to this, as pointed out by JKMSCL that petitioner in OWP No. 1823/2016 has responded to NIT No. JKMSCL/Ayd/Unani/Med/2017/130, dated 18th January 2017. Thus, petitioner is one of the participants in bidding/tendering process put into motion by JKMSCL and in such circumstances petitioner, while pursuing writ petition against shifting of funds to JKMSCL, has partaken in the process initiated by none other than JKMSCL. 44. Pertinent to mention here that reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interest of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. 44. Pertinent to mention here that reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interest of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved; the nature of right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time, enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Cancalization of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable, where interests of the country/State are concerned or where the business affects the economy or welfare of the country/State. 45. Keeping in view the analysis made of legal positions, and in the absence of any material to discount legitimacy of policy, the petitioners have not made out a case for interference. 46. It is not appropriate for the Court to interfere in a decision taken by the Government or the authorities concerned, after due consideration of all perspectives and full application of mind. The Supreme Court in N.D. Jayal v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 362 , has observed that "This Court cannot sit in judgment over the cutting edge of scientific analysis relating to the safety of any project. Experts in science may themselves differ in their opinions while taking decision on matters related to safety and allied aspects. The opposing viewpoints of the experts will also have to be given due consideration after full application of mind. When the Government or the authorities concerned after due consideration of all viewpoints and full application of mind took a decision, then it is not appropriate for the court to interfere." 47. Applying the foregoing parameters to the case at Bar, this Court finds that the decision, impugned in instant writ petition(s) is immune from judicial review. 48. When the Government or the authorities concerned after due consideration of all viewpoints and full application of mind took a decision, then it is not appropriate for the court to interfere." 47. Applying the foregoing parameters to the case at Bar, this Court finds that the decision, impugned in instant writ petition(s) is immune from judicial review. 48. In view of the aforesaid analysis, specially in absence of mala fide, prejudice, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, extraneous consideration or the impugned decision being against public interest; the decision of respondent department, cancelling/withdrawing supply order(s), addendum to clause 16 of supply orders or shifting funds to JKMSCL for procurement of ISM drugs and medicines, is immune from judicial review in the given facts and circumstances. As a corollary, writ petitions are devoid of any merit. 49. For all what has been discussed above, writ petitions are dismissed. Interim direction(s) is/are vacated. However, it may not be out of place to mention here that petitioners are free to fall back on the remedy as available to them under and in terms of the contract that they had entered into with respondent department. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, the parties are left to bear their individual costs.