JUDGMENT S. Muralidhar. J. - The first prayer in the present writ petition is for a declaration that an order dated 1st June, 2020 passed by the Managing Director, Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh (Respondent No. 1), dehiring the Petitioners' godown is illegal. 2. The further prayer is for a direction to the Respondent No. 3/Punjab State Transmission Corporation Ltd. that it should remove the EHT wires installed by it, which is running over the PEG Godown belonging to the Petitioners and, in the alternative, to compensate for the losses suffered by the Petitioners due to laying down of wires over the godown. 3. Initially, it appears that the Petitioners had filed a civil suit exclusively against Respondent No. 3, seeking a mandatory injunction. However, after filing the present writ petition, the said suit stood withdrawn. 4. Today, Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is candid that as far as any claim for compensation that the Petitioners may have against Respondent No.3, they will have approach the concerned authority under Section 67 of the Electricity Act. 5. It must be noted at this stage that there is no arbitration clause in the contract between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 1. Notice of motion has been issued in the present writ petition by an order dated 1st July, 2020. By a subsequent order dated 17th July, 2020, it was recorded that stocks in the godown have been liquidated by the FCI and the keys of the godown have also been returned to the godown owner. 6. Today, Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned Senior Counsel tried to persuade this Court to hear the writ petition insofar as the issue of the legality of the action of the Respondent No. 1 in de-hiring the godown is concerned. 7. Having heard the submissions of Mr. Puneet Jindal learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and the submissions of Mr. Abhinav Gupta, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, Mr. K.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Vikas Chatrath, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, the court is of the considered view that the question of whether the de-hiring of the godown was illegal not only raises issues concerning the interpretation of contract and policy, but also disputed question of facts, which would require evidence to be led by the parties. 8. 9. Vikas Chatrath, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, the court is of the considered view that the question of whether the de-hiring of the godown was illegal not only raises issues concerning the interpretation of contract and policy, but also disputed question of facts, which would require evidence to be led by the parties. 8. 9. The Court Is Therefore Of The View That, As Regards The Aforesaid Aspects, The Present Writ Petition Is Not The Most Appropriate Remedy. The Court Accordingly Declines To Exercise Its Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Of The Constitution, Leaving It Open To The Petitioners To Seek Appropriate Remedies In A Civil Court Qua Respondent Nos. 1 And 2. Further, As Regards Any Claim Qua Respondent No. 3, It Will Be Open To The Petitioners To Seek Appropriate Remedies In Accordance With Law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of.