ORDER : Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the cases. 2. Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in all the cases. 3. This writ petition being W.P.(C). No. 3285 of 2011 has been filed for the following relief: “For quashing of PART of order dated 14.05.2011 by which order has been passed to recover the amount from the transporter from their running bill for the extra cost of transportation of food grains which is known being carried out by the corporation themselves without cancellation of the agreement enter into by the corporation with the petitioner which is valid till 23.12.2011, and without cancellation of the same and without any notice to the petitioner suo-moto respondent start transportation work of themselves and illegally order of recover has been passed in violation of principle of substantial natural justice. Hence the order as contain in annexure (8) is illegal void and without jurisdiction. And Petitioner further prays or issuance of appropriate writs/order(s)/direction(s) particularly writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of notice inviting tender dated 04.05.2011 published in newspaper namely Dainik Jagran as contain in Annexure – 7 to this application for transportation of food grains in various district including the district of khunti in which petitioner is working and the agreement is valid till 23.12.2011, and the same has never been cancelled but illegally without any order the respondent force the petitioner not to do the transportation work for the reason best known to the respondent authority until and unless the agreement cancelled the respondent cannot come out with the fresh tender for the same work which the petitioner is performing And For commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 14.05.2011 and also notice inviting tender published in the newspaper namely Dainik Jagran dated 04.05.2011 And Petitioner further prays that during the pendency of the instant writ application no recovery from the bill and the fresh N.I.T. dated 04.05.2011 be remain stayed.” 4. W.P.(C) No. 3401 of 2011 has been filed for the following reliefs: “(a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly writ in the nature of certiorari or quashing of PART of order dated 14.05.2011 by which order has been passed to recover the amount from the transporter from their running bill for the extra cost of transportation of food grains which is known being carried out by the corporation themselves without cancelation of the agreement enter into by the corporation with the petitioner which is valid till 23.12.2011, and without cancelation of the same and without any notice to the petitioner sou-moto respondent start transportation work of themselves and illegally order of recovery has been passed in violation of principle of substantial natural justice. Hence the order as contain in annexure (8) is illegal void and without jurisdiction. (b) Petitioner further prays or issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of notice inviting tender dated 04.05.2011 published in newspaper namely Dainik Jagran as contain in Annexure-(7) to this application for transportation of food grains in various district including the district of khunti in which petitioner is working and the agreement is valid till 23.12.2011, and the same has never been cancelled but illegally without any order the respondent force the petitioner not to do the transportation work for the reason best known to the respondent authority until and unless the agreement cancelled the respondent cannot come out with the fresh tender for the same work which the petitioner is performing. (c) Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 14.05.2011 and also notice inviting tender published in the newspaper namely Dainik Jagran dated 04.05.2011. (d) Petitioner further prays that during the pendency of the instant writ application no recovery from the bill and the fresh N.I.T. dated 04.05.2011 be remain stayed.” 5. W.P.(C) No. 5182 of 2011 has been filed for the following reliefs: “i. For quashing of letter dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure–10/1) which has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.7.2011 by which the rate of transportation has been enhanced approx. W.P.(C) No. 5182 of 2011 has been filed for the following reliefs: “i. For quashing of letter dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure–10/1) which has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.7.2011 by which the rate of transportation has been enhanced approx. 50 % to 145 % without disclosing any reason and order for recovery has been passed without considering that the respondents are not taking any work from the petitioner and in spite of that they are issuing letter for recovery from the bill of the petitioner which is against the agreement entered into with the petitioner and the rate mentioned in the agreement will prevail not a letter until and unless the agreement is being modified or amended to that extent and admittedly the agreement has not been amended or modified by issuing a letter and the rate has been enhanced suo motu without disclosing any reason nor stating anything what extra services is being provided by the respondents to the petitioner and order of recovery has been passed which is illegal, void and without jurisdiction as the petitioner has been stopped from transportation work by the order of the respondents themselves then there is no occasion to issue letter dated 20.7.2011 and hence the same is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. ii. for quashing of notice inviting tender dated 04.05.2011 published in newspaper namely, Dainik Jaagran as contained in Annexure – (7) to this application for transportation of food grains in various district including the district of Ranchi in which petitioner is working and the agreement is valid till 05.01.2012 and the same has never been cancelled but illegally without any order the respondent force the petitioner not to do the transportation work for the reason best known to the respondent authority until and unless the agreement cancelled the respondent cannot come out with the fresh tender for the same work which the petitioner is performing. iii. iii. For commanding upon the respondents not to consider the agreement of the petitioner is cancelled in terms of the legal notice as the agreement cannot be cancelled by way of legal notice until and unless issue a letter in respect to the cancellation of the agreement between the parties but till date department has not issued letter in respect to the cancellation of the petitioner by the competent authority rather as per instruction of in competent authority legal notice has been served upon the petitioner by which the concerned Advocate has cancelled the agreement of the petitioner without any rhyme and reason and without disclosing the authority who has empowered him to do so and hence in view of the fact the petitioner is still willing to do the work as per the agreement and as per the rate prescribed in the agreement. iv. for commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 20.7.2011 and also notice inviting tender published in the newspaper namely, Dainik Jagran dated 04.05.2011. v. Petitioner further prays that during the pendency of the instant writ application no recovery from the bill and fresh N.I.T. dated 04.05.2011 be remain stayed.” 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents at the outset submits that it was already submitted on 31.10.2018 that the parties are governed by agreement relating to contract between them containing arbitration clause and disputed question of facts involved in this case, which cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that in such circumstances, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the other hand submits that the petitioners may get their grievances redressed in accordance with law. He further submits that there is arbitration clause in the agreement and the petitioners is entitled for arbitration in connection with the dispute as per the provisions of law particularly Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 8. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are dismissed on account of availability of alternative remedy of arbitration arising out of contract between the parties as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Petition dismissed.