JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. P. Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for all the respondents. 2. This is a petition praying for a direction to be issued to the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate to the concerned Bankers to enable the petitioners to withdraw the amounts that had been promised by them to the respondents vide the Bank Guarantees given to the Government. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioners were the sole distributor of On-line and paper Lotteries in the State of Mizoram on the basis of 2 (two) Agreements dated 01.07.2008 (for Online Lotteries) and 26.05.2009 (for paper Lotteries), executed by the petitioners and the State of Mizoram. In respect of the Agreement dated 01.07.2008 (for Online Lotteries), security in the form of Bank Guarantee amounting to Rs. 2 crores had been furnished by the petitioners. In respect of the Agreement dated 26.05.2009 (for paper Lotteries), the petitioners furnished Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1 crore, even though the agreement required that Bank Guarantee was to be furnished for Rs. 50 lakhs. 4. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondents filed Money Suit No. 47/2011 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl, praying for a decree for payment of Rs. 2,00,39,794/- with interest. The Trial Court passed an ex-parte Judgment & Order and Decree dated 24.06.2011 in Money Suit No. 47/2011, by decreeing that the petitioner was to pay to the respondents the sum of Rs. 2,00,39,794/- with interest, at the rate of 12% p.a w.e.f., 15.04.2011 i.e., the date of Institution of the Suit till final payment. Cost of Rs. 21,000/- was also directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of the Judgment & Order and Decree dated 24.06.2011. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the ex-parte Judgment & Order and Decree dated 24.06.2011 passed in Money Suit No. 47/2011, the petitioners filed CRP No. 12/2016 before this Court. 21,000/- was also directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of the Judgment & Order and Decree dated 24.06.2011. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the ex-parte Judgment & Order and Decree dated 24.06.2011 passed in Money Suit No. 47/2011, the petitioners filed CRP No. 12/2016 before this Court. CRP No. 12/2016 was disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 27.06.2017, on the ground that Court of Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl lacked the inherent jurisdiction to dispose of Money Suit No. 47/2011, in view of there being an arbitration clause in the agreements made between the parties, which provided that in case differences/disputes arose with regard to the contract in question, the same would be referred to an arbitrator. Consequently, this Court, vide Judgment & Order dated 27.06.2017, passed in CRP No. 12/2016 directed the parties herein to refer the differences/disputes before the arbitrator to be nominated by the parties. Consequent to the above direction passed by this Court in CRP No. 12/2016, the disputes between the parties have been referred to a sole arbitrator. 6. The petitioners, in the meantime, had also filed the present writ petition in respect of the Bank Guarantees submitted by them to the Government, in pursuance to the 2 (two) agreements made, for marketing Online and Paper Lotteries on behalf of the Government of Mizoram. The prayer of the petitioners in the present writ petition is for a direction to be issued to the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate to the concerned Bankers to enable the petitioners to encash the Bank Guarantee submitted to the Government. 7. It would also be pertinent to mention here that the petitioners had also filed an application in the Madras High Court, which was registered as OA No. 624/2010, with a prayer to the Madras High Court to restrain the said Government from encashing the Bank Guarantees submitted by the petitioners. The said OA No. 624/2010 has been withdrawn by the petitioners from the Madras High Court vide Order dated 27.08.2018. 8. The petitioners counsel submits that in pursuance to the 2 (two) agreements made by the petitioners with the State Government, for Marketing Online and Paper Lotteries vide Agreements dated 01.07.2008 and 26.05.2009, the petitioners have submitted the following Bank Guarantees, which are reproduced below:- Sl. 8. The petitioners counsel submits that in pursuance to the 2 (two) agreements made by the petitioners with the State Government, for Marketing Online and Paper Lotteries vide Agreements dated 01.07.2008 and 26.05.2009, the petitioners have submitted the following Bank Guarantees, which are reproduced below:- Sl. No. Date Name of Bank No. allotted to the Bank Guarantee Amount (in INR) 1. 08-07-2009 Vijaya Bank, Triplicane, Chennai 30151BGIS 080005 1,00,00,000 2. 19-05-2009 Vijaya Bank, Triplicane, Chennai 30171BGI 070006 30,00,000/- 3. 05-10-2009 Punjab National Bank, Chennai 107/95 25,00,000/- 4. 05-10-2003 Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai LG/305/16/1993 20,00,000/- 5. 13-06-2009 Indian Bank, Chennai 21/94 20,00,000/- 6. 16-09-2009 Corporation Bank, Chennai 16/93 5,00,000/- 7. 04-07-2009 Vijaya Bank, Triplicane, Chennai-05 30151BGIS 080004 1,00,00,000 TOTAL 2,00,00,000/- 9. Mr. P. Madhavan, the petitioners counsel submits that while respondents outstanding claim made against the petitioners, in respect of the 2 (two) Agreements dated 01.07.2008 and 26.05.2009, is to the tune of Rs. 2,00,39,794/-, the petitioners have given Bank Guarantees totaling Rs. 3,00,00,000. As the claim of the respondents is only Rs. 2,00,39,794/-, the remaining Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should be released to the petitioners. 10. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that though the claim of the respondents against the petitioner is to the tune of Rs. 20,00,39,794/-, the petitioner would also have to pay interest on the above amount. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate also submits that the Punjab National Bank, Chennai, had remitted the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs, through RTGS, to the credit of the respondents Bank account on 13.05.2010, in respect of Bank Guarantee No. 107/1995. She thus submits that the respondents claim against the petitioner is Rs. 20,00,39,794/-. Further the interest that may be awarded would also have to be realized out of the remaining Bank Guarantees, totaling Rs. 2.75 crores and not 3 crores. She further submits that as the petitioners had furnished extra Bank Guarantee amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs, she has got instructions, which is to the effect that the Government is willing to release 50 lakhs worth of Bank Guarantee and give No Objection Certificate to the concerned Bankers, to enable the petitioners to withdraw the Rs. 50 lakhs. She further submits that as the petitioners had furnished extra Bank Guarantee amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs, she has got instructions, which is to the effect that the Government is willing to release 50 lakhs worth of Bank Guarantee and give No Objection Certificate to the concerned Bankers, to enable the petitioners to withdraw the Rs. 50 lakhs. This is due to the fact that the petitioners had furnished an extra 50 lakhs as Bank Guarantee, which was over and above the required 50 lakhs Bank Guarantee to be furnished, in pursuance to the Agreement dated 26.05.2009 (for paper Lotteries). 11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 12. The issue at hand is with regard to the claim of the respondents against the petitioners, amounting to Rs. 2,00,39,794/-. Compared to the above claimed amount, the petitioners have given Bank Guarantees to the respondents totalling Rs. 3 crores. It is also not in dispute between the parties that the validity of the Bank Guarantees submitted by the petitioners have expired and the same have not been revived by the petitioners and their bankers. As the claim of the respondents against the petitioners is presently being decided by an arbitrator, this Court is of the view that the matter regarding the prayer of the petitioners, with regard to issuance of No Objection Certificate by the respondents to the petitioners' bankers, in respect of the Bank Guarantees can also be decided by the arbitrator. The petitioners have not been able to show this Court that there has been any violation of their legal and fundamental rights. Further, in view of section 9 & 16 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is of the view that there being an alternative efficacious remedy available, the issue brought out by the petitioners in this case can also be decided by the arbitrator. 13. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its discretion in this case by issuing a writ of mandamus. The above being said, as the petitioners have furnished Rs. 3 crores in Bank Guarantees, in pursuant to the Agreements dated 01.07.2008 (for Online Lotteries) and 26.05.2009 (for paper Lotteries), though it was supposed to furnish only Rs. The above being said, as the petitioners have furnished Rs. 3 crores in Bank Guarantees, in pursuant to the Agreements dated 01.07.2008 (for Online Lotteries) and 26.05.2009 (for paper Lotteries), though it was supposed to furnish only Rs. 2.5 crores in Bank Guarantees for the above 2 (two) agreements, it would be in the interest of justice and equity, if the excess amount of 50 lakhs, furnished by the petitioners to the respondents in respect of the Agreement dated 26.05.2009 (for paper Lotteries), be returned back to the petitioners. Accordingly, the State respondents are directed to release to the petitioners, the extra Rs. 50 lakhs furnished by way of Bank Guarantees in respect of the Agreement dated 26.05.2009 (for paper Lotteries) and give No Objection Certificate to the concerned Bankers, to enable the petitioners to withdraw the said 50 lakhs. In this regard, the State respondents should identify the Bank Guarantees they want to release to the petitioners and release the same within one month from today. With regard to the remaining 2.5 crores furnished by way of Bank Guarantees, the petitioners may refer the matter to the sole arbitrator, who is presently adjudicating the dispute between the parties, for his decision. 14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.