JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. The National Federation of Farmers Procurement, Processing and Retailing Cooperation of India Limited (in short, “NACOF”) has filed this Letters Patent Appeal to challenge the writ Court’s order dated 1st March 2023 passed in WP(C) No. 1339 of 2021. 2. Before the writ Court, the NACOF laid a challenge to the order dated 24th November 2020 passed by the Managing Director of the Jharkhand State Food Corporation (in short, “JSFC”) on the ground that the responsibility for not depositing the Customed Milled Rice (in short, “CMR”) with the Food Corporation of India to the tune of 57892.81 quintals cannot be shifted on it. The FCI simply shrugged off the responsibility of making payment to NACOF on the ground that only towards the CMR quantity received by it the payment shall be released. Besides referring to the communications by the parties, the FCI took the following stand in its counter-affidavit filed before the writ Court: “37. That in the foregoing facts and circumstances, the decision for disbursement of the outstanding dues claimed by M/s. NACOF has to be taken by the State of Jharkhand. The answering Respondents are bound by the decision of the Government of Jharkhand as M/s. NACOF was an agency appointed by the Government of Jharkhand for procurement work as stated hereinabove. 38. That the answering Respondent has not delayed payment to M/s. NACOF and any payment that has been withheld is due to non-production of essential documents relating to procurement. In these facts and circumstances, the answering Respondent is not liable and the non-payment, if any, is due to clear prohibition and want of documents and clarification of the process to be worked out by the Jharkhand State Food Corporation.” 3. The JSFC also denied its liability to make payment to the NACOF for the shortfall quantity of 57892.81 quintals, taking the following stand in its supplementary counter-affidavit dated 24th November 2022: “11. That reply to the statement made at paragraph-7 of the writ application as follows: a. That in reply to the statements made at paragraph-7 (a &b) it is stated that in KMS 2016-17, NACOF has been nominated as agency for procurement of paddy in Santhal Pargana Division and North Chotanagpur Division by the Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department by Resolution No.-3846 dated 27.09.2016 and Resolution No.-4458 dated 02.11.2016. Further it is submitted that NACOF was blacklisted due to delay in the payment made to the farmers upon the paddy which has been procured. b. That in reply to the paragraph-7 (c) it is submitted that NACOF receives administrative fee from the Food Corporation of India for paddy procurement and procurement plan was to be monitored and arranged by NACOF only. c. That in reply to the paragraph-7 (d) it is stated and submitted that the plan is to be monitored by the committee constituted at the state, district and block levels. d. That in reply to the paragraph- 7 (e) it is stated that it is the responsibility of NACOF to carry out the work of procurement of paddy and deposit CMR as per clause- 07 of the revised agreement with NACOF. e. That the statement made at paragraph-7 (f) is matter of record and hence no comments required. f. That the statement made at paragraph-7 (g) is matters of record and hence no comments required. g. That in reply to the statement made at paragraph-7 (h) it is submitted that as per clause-7 of the revised agreement with NACOF, it is the responsibility of NACOF to undertake the work of procurement of paddy and deposit of CMR. h. That the statement made at paragraph-7 (i) is matters of record and hence no comments required. i. That the statement made at paragraph-7 (j) is matters of record and hence no comments required. j. That in reply to the statement made at paragraph-7 (k) it is submitted that the farmers whose payment was not made by NACOF, those farmers were paid by the district under the supervision of NACOF. k. That the statement made at paragraph-7 (1) is matters of record and hence no comments required. 1. That the statement made at paragraph-7 (m) is matters of record and hence no comments required. m. That in reply to the statement made at paragraph-7 (n) it is submitted that after the reconciliation as the amount was received from the Food Corporation of India the same is being provided to NACOF. 1. That the statement made at paragraph-7 (m) is matters of record and hence no comments required. m. That in reply to the statement made at paragraph-7 (n) it is submitted that after the reconciliation as the amount was received from the Food Corporation of India the same is being provided to NACOF. n. That in reply to the statements made at-7 (o to u) it is submitted that in the Kharif marketing season 2016-17, NACOF was nominated as procurement agency for paddy procurement work in the districts of North Chotanagpur (except Ramgarh district) and Santhal Pargana division vide Departmental Resolution No. 3846 dated 27.09.2016. Paddy was to be purchased by NACOF on the basis of his credit. LAMPS / PACS have been operated by NACOF at their level as paddy procurement center. In the Kharif marketing season 2016-17, 506480.94 quintals of paddy were purchased by NACOF, against which the price of 397272.85 quintals of paddy was paid. Due to non-payment of the remaining paddy by NACOF, the Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Jharkhand made the payment by Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation by registering NACOF in the black list. Further it is submitted that the amount paid to the farmers is reimbursed by the Food Corporation of India as the amount was reimbursed from the Food Corporation of India, action was taken to pay NACOF. For reconciliation with NACOF, he was directed to be present at the corporation headquarters with evidence. In the course of the above, Rs 27.15 crore was demanded NACOF by while dedicating the representation. In the light of representation received from NACOF, a complete report was received from the district and reviewed. After review, a logical order was passed by the Corporation Headquarters' letter number 2132 dated 24.11.2020 (Annexure-27 to the writ application) Rs 24.93 lakh was payable to NACOF on completing the reconciliation work, which was paid. 12. That in reply to the statements made at paragraphs-8 & 9 it is submitted that reconciliation was done with NACOF and after the reconciliation the due amount of Rs.24.93 lakhs were paid to NACOF.” 4. The writ Court after recording the rival stands of the parties came to a conclusion that the NACOF is not entitled for the discretionary relief in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ Court after recording the rival stands of the parties came to a conclusion that the NACOF is not entitled for the discretionary relief in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For arriving at such a conclusion, the writ Court referred to the decisions in “Punjab National Bank and Others v. Atmanand Singh and Others” (2020) 6 SCC 256 , “Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India and others” (2015) 7 SCC 728 , “ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others” (2004) 3 SCC 553 and “Unitech Limited and Others v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others” 2021 SCC OnLine SC 99. The writ Court held as under: “13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent authority has arbitrarily denied the payment of its outstanding dues against the procured paddy for Kharif Marketing Season 2016-17. 14. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that 5,06,480.94 quintals of paddy was procured by the petitioner from the farmers, however, it paid the price of 3,97,272.85 quintals of paddy to the farmers and as such JSFC paid remaining amount for 1,09,208.10 quintals of paddy to the farmers from its own level. The said payment made by the JSFC was adjusted from the amount received by the FCI for the deposited CMR. It has further been observed that during reconciliation of accounts, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.27,15,28,021.38 from JSFC, however, it was found that JSFC had made payment of Rs.54,11,48,675.03 to the petitioner as well as the concerned farmers, rice millers and LAMPS/PACCS, whereas JSFC received Rs.54,36,41,797.03 from FCI and concerned millers. As such the differential amount of Rs.24,93,122/- is to be paid to the petitioner by JSFC. On the basis of the reports received from the concerned districts, the respondent no.4 has observed that the payment equivalent to 57,892.81 quintals paddy was made by the petitioner, however, custom milled rice against the same was not deposited in godowns of FCI and the petitioner was responsible for the same. The information about pending payment against paddy with rice millers and LAMPS/PACCS was not provided by the petitioner in time. The information about pending payment against paddy with rice millers and LAMPS/PACCS was not provided by the petitioner in time. The respondent no.4 also rejected the claim of interest made by the petitioner observing that the petitioner was entitled for payment to the extent of CMR deposited in FCI and payment of the same was made to it as per the amount received from FCI in lieu of deposited CMR. 15. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioner is that the responsibility of monitoring was vested with the respondent no.4 as well as the monitoring committees constituted by the State Government for the said purpose at State, district and block levels. The petitioner had no direct control over the functioning of PACCS/LAMPS or the rice millers. It has further been claimed that several representations were made to the respondent no.4 informing that PACCS were not providing paddy to the tagged rice mills and the rice millers were not depositing CMR to FCI in time and, therefore, requested to take action against the concerned rice millers, however, no action was taken against them for which the petitioner cannot be penalized. 16. Thus, the petitioner and the respondents have their own contentions justifying the respective claims. They have made allegations and counter allegations against each other, however, undisputedly the CMR of 57,892.81 quintals of paddy was not deposited with the FCI. It appears to the court that since in the process of procurement of paddy from the farmers for delivery of CMR in the godowns of FCI, various agencies i.e. PACCS/LAMPS, rice millers, the petitioner, respondent no.4 and the committees constituted to monitor the paddy procurement process were involved, it is for the fact finding body/forum to examine as to at which level the fault/lapse had occurred. 17. In the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Versus Atmanand Singh and Others, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 256 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing several judgments has summarized the law dealing with the scope of intervention by the High Court in the matter involving money claim. 17. In the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Versus Atmanand Singh and Others, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 256 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing several judgments has summarized the law dealing with the scope of intervention by the High Court in the matter involving money claim. It has been held that when the petition raises questions of fact of complex nature, such as in the present case, which may for their determination require oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the concerned party and also because the relief sought is merely for ordering a refund of money, the High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ petition, rather should relegate the parties to the remedy of a civil suit. 18. In the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that discretion to deal with a contractual matter lies with the concerned High Court which under certain circumstances can refuse to entertain. Normally, the Court would not exercise such a discretion, if there are serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. It has further been held that money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained barring exceptional circumstances. 19. Thus, it is well settled principle of law that the exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The writ jurisdiction should not be invoked as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained through a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. The High Court should not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to determine the claim of the parties. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 , wherein it has been held as under:- “27. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 , wherein it has been held as under:- “27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition: (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.” 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner also puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Unitech Limited and Others Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 99, wherein while observing that mere making a claim did not raise a disputed question of fact, the appeal was disposed of holding that Unitech would be entitled for refund of Rs.165.00 crores together with interest at the SBI-PLR commencing from the respective dates of payment, computed in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement (except for compounding). 22. The aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case since serious disputed questions of fact are involved in the same which are of complex nature requiring laying of evidence for appropriate determination. The said exercise can only be done by a fact finding body/forum. 23. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 24. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse for redressal of its grievance before the fact finding body/forum.” 5. There is no absolute rule of non-interference by the writ Court wherever a dispute on facts has been raised by the respondent. In “Unitech Limited” the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that mere making of a claim shall not be construed as raising a disputed question of fact. There is no absolute rule of non-interference by the writ Court wherever a dispute on facts has been raised by the respondent. In “Unitech Limited” the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that mere making of a claim shall not be construed as raising a disputed question of fact. After referring to “Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda” (1969) 3 SCC 769 and “Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council” (1970) 1 SCC 582 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ABL International” clearly laid down that the writ Court shall not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because some questions of fact shall be required to be adjudicated. 6. Notwithstanding referring to the aforementioned judgments, the writ Court did not permit the challenge by the NACOF to the order dated 24th November 2020 by merely observing that serious disputed questions of fact are involved in the writ petition. The writ Court’s decision is apparently flawed at least for this reason that the arbitrariness in the action of the JSFC could have been looked into by the writ Court. Therefore, we have decided to look into the grievance made by the NACOF with reference to the dispute sought to be raised by the JSFC. 7. In the present proceeding, this Court required information from the JSFC as regards lodging of a First Information Report against PACCS/LAMPS, and the following order was passed on 5th December 2023: “In course of the hearing, Mr. Abhinav Kardekar, the learned counsel for the appellant has indicated that by now about 18 crores out of the total balance claimed by the appellant has been paid. 2. From the affidavit filed by the Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, it appears that the objection raised by it to the claim made by the appellant is that the whole of the CMR was not supplied to the corporation and, therefore, payment for that quantity has been withheld. 3. Let an affidavit be filed by the appellant regarding payments made to it till date. 4. Let an affidavit be filed by the respondents disclosing whether First Information Report has been lodged against PACCS/LAMPS involved in the present case. 5. Post this matter on 16th January 2024 under the heading ‘Final Disposal’.” 8. 3. Let an affidavit be filed by the appellant regarding payments made to it till date. 4. Let an affidavit be filed by the respondents disclosing whether First Information Report has been lodged against PACCS/LAMPS involved in the present case. 5. Post this matter on 16th January 2024 under the heading ‘Final Disposal’.” 8. In compliance of the order of this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the JSFC taking the following stand: “5. That almost all the points raised in the instant LPA had been raised earlier in WP (C) No. 1339 of 2021. 6. That the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the instant LPA had rejected the averments made also in the instant LPA through its counter affidavit filed on 29.07.2022 and supplementary counter affidavit filed 24.11.2022 in WP(C) No. 1339 of 2021. 7. That the sequence of events leading to the filing of the instant of LPA is given partly in Annexure B. 8. That the Reasoned order passed by the Managing JSFC has Director, answered almost all the points raised by the appellant in the instant LPA. 9. That the instant LPA is not maintainable because it is based upon disputed questions of fact. If the appellant is not satisfied with the Reasoned Order he may approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for the prayers contained in the instant LPA. It should not be decided under Article 226 under the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 10. That the instant LPA is not maintainable because it relates to money claim which is not admitted by the respondents. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India as mentioned in the impugned order of the writ court it should not be entertained by this Hon'ble Court. 11. That in view of the facts stated and reasons assigned in the prayers of the petitioners as contained in the instant writ petition cannot be allowed. 12. That the Respondents/ deponent herein crave the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to give parawise comments and/or file supplementary affidavit(s), if required or if so Ordered by this Hon'ble Court. 13. That this counter affidavit is being filed bonafidely and in the interest of justice.” 9. The learned counsels appearing for the NACOF and the FCI have filed/tendered their written submissions. The procurement mechanism as outlined in the written submission of Mr. 13. That this counter affidavit is being filed bonafidely and in the interest of justice.” 9. The learned counsels appearing for the NACOF and the FCI have filed/tendered their written submissions. The procurement mechanism as outlined in the written submission of Mr. Nipun Bakshi, the learned counsel appearing for the FCI involved the following stakeholders and was operated as under: “i. Procurement Centers - NCML, MACOF, PACCS, LAMPS, Agricultural Co-operative Societies/Vyapar Mandal, Green Gola etc. ii. Payment - The quality check of paddy will be conducted as per Government of India guidelines and payment will be directly credited to the bank accounts of the farmers within seven days of procurement by RTGS/NEFT. iii. NACOF was selected as the Additional Procurement Agency which had to make payment to farmers through its own funds at the procurement stage. iv. Transportation - The transportation of paddy from Paddy Purchase Centre/LAMPS/PACCS was the responsibility of (Millers for which they would be paid transportation charges as approved by the Government of India through Food Corporation of India. v. Advance CMR System with millers - The millers shall first deposit Custom Milled Rice at FCI and obtain Acceptance Note (A-Note) which shall be utilized for lifting proportionate paddy from Procurement Centers. vi. Registration and tagging of mills - The Procurement Agency shall be responsible for registration and tagging of millers for lifting paddy in coordination with JSFC/State authorities. vii. Preparation of CMR Bill & payment by FCI - The invoice/bill shall be prepared by the Procurement Agency including NCML & NACOF which shall be paid by FCI only based on CMR received at its depots. viii. Supervision - Supervision of the entire procurement process would be undertaken by the State Level Committee headed by Development Commissioner and by the District Level Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner.” 10. The NACOF has reiterated its stand that the transportation of paddy was the sole responsibility of the Millers who shall receive payments thereof as per the guidelines of the FCI. The procurement mechanism, under which the paddy was procured and the Millers were required to deposit CMR with the FCI, provided that on the basis of the “Acceptance Note” issued by the FCI the Millers shall be entitled to lift the proportionate quantity of paddy from the Procurement Centers. The procurement mechanism, under which the paddy was procured and the Millers were required to deposit CMR with the FCI, provided that on the basis of the “Acceptance Note” issued by the FCI the Millers shall be entitled to lift the proportionate quantity of paddy from the Procurement Centers. The respondents have reiterated their stand taken before the writ Court but what remains uncontroverted is that the procurement process was supervised by the State Level Committee and the District Level Committees headed by the State authorities. In the procurement exercise, the role of the NACOF which was selected as the Additional Procurement Agency remained confined to the purchase of paddy from the farmers. The respondent-JSFC does not allege that the NACOF did not purchase 57892.81 quintals of paddy rather admits that the NACOF has made payment to the farmers for the said quantity of paddy. However, it has refused to reimburse the NACOF on the ground that the corresponding quantity of CMR was not deposited with the FCI. The Managing Director in his order dated 24th November 2020 recorded that the shortfall in the quantity of paddy to the tune of 57892.81 quintals was on account of failure of the NACOF to follow the prescribed procedure. The stand taken by the JSFC is clearly arbitrary and based on an erroneous assumption that the responsibility to deposit CMR with the FCI was of the NACOF. 11. In the order dated 24th November 2020, the Managing Director recorded that the NACOF made payments to the farmers towards the procurement of 57892.81 quintals of paddy. In the said order, every detail of the payments received by the JSFC from the FCI, payments made by the JSFC to the NACOF, and the payments made to the farmers have been catalogued. Now, having admitted that the NACOF made payments to the farmers, it cannot be held responsible for the shortfall. This is a settled law that the State and its instrumentalities are required to demonstrate fair play in action. In “ABL International” the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that even in contractual matters the State and its instrumentalities are required to follow the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The withholding of payment by the JSFC for the procurement of 57892.81 quintals of paddy is clearly unauthorized and illegal. In “ABL International” the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that even in contractual matters the State and its instrumentalities are required to follow the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The withholding of payment by the JSFC for the procurement of 57892.81 quintals of paddy is clearly unauthorized and illegal. In the order dated 24th November 2020, the Managing Director erroneously put the blame on NACOF for the alleged short supply of paddy to the tune of 57892.81 quintals. 12. Mr. Abhinav Kardekar, the learned counsel for the appellant-NACOF who is appearing through virtual mode makes a statement in the Court that as late as on 2nd March 2023 the payment were made by the JSFC to the NACOF and, as of now, Rs. 7,71,36,866.00 remains the balance amount to be paid to it. 13. Having regard to the fact that the NACOF made payments for the procurement of 57892.81 quintals of paddy, the decision dated 24th November 2020 of the Managing Director of the JSFC is held erroneous and therefore quashed. Consequently, WP(C) No. 1339 of 2021 is allowed with a direction to the Managing Director of the JSFC to make payment to the NACOF for 57892.81 quintals of paddy within four weeks. 14. In the result, the writ Court’s order dated 1st March 2023 is set aside and LPA No. 331 of 2023 is allowed.