ORDER : 1. The issue that arises for consideration in all these Writ Petitions is with regard to the rejection of claim made by the petitioner under the Insurance scheme floated by the respondents. Hence, with consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side, Writ Petitions were all taken together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a firm engaged in 100% export oriented business in exporting granites to various countries. The petitioner Company is also recognised by the Government of India in that aspects. He would submit that the respondent provided export credit insurance facilities to the exporters and banks in India in order to encourage and facilitate the globalization of India and to assist the Indian Exporters in managing the creditors by providing timely worthiness of buyers and bankers and the said Insurance policy is to protect the Indian exporters against unforeseen losses which may arise due to the failure on the buyer/bank in honouring their commitments to the exporter. The first respondent had awarded various insurance products. The first respondent is basically an export promotion organisation promoted by the Government of India and managed by a Board of Directors comprising the representatives of the Government, RBI, Banking Insurance and exporting communities. The premium payable under the Insurance policy was based upon the export turn over of the policy holder for a year. The standard turnover policy covers the eligible shipments by the petitioner. The petitioner firm had also submitted a proposal for export turnover policy for shipments during the period 01.02.2012 to 31.12.2013 and on satisfaction of the export turnover policy, the petitioner was benefited with a policy under the said scheme. The petitioner had exported granites to three companies under three difference policies. During the currency of the business and the aforesaid policies, the State Government had initiated various proceedings including criminal proceedings under the Mines and Minerals Act against the petitioner and in the course of the same, the factory and mines premises of the petitioner were sealed and all the documents subject to the entire business transactions were seized and taken into custody by the Investigating Officer. The efforts taken by the petitioner to recover the dues from the companies to which the Export was made remained unfruitful. The amounts due to be received from the overseas buyer was covered under the policy and the remained unpaid and hence, the petitioner had sought invocation of the Insurance cover and had lodged a claim before the third respondent in terms and conditions of the export turnover policy for realization of the loss suffered by the petitioner. 4. He would submit that it is undisputed that the petitioner had exported the goods and the same had been taken delivery by the respective overseas companies and therefore, the petitioner had fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the policy and is entitled to be indemnified for the loss that it had suffered. By communication dated 20.09.2013, the third respondent herein had pointed out certain discrepancies and sought compliance of the same. The petitioner was granted 60 days time to submit the clarification and to produce required documents. Immediately, the petitioner had submitted detailed clarification through several of their representations, but the respondent without considering the clarifications and the documents produced by the petitioner declined the claim of the petitioner vide various communications. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner had been unjustly rejected and the same is in violation of the various clauses of the policy. The reasons assigned in the order of rejection whereby the claims of the petitioner had been repudiated are all unreasonable. The respondents are bound to indemnify the petitioner against the loss suffered in the export by way of non-realisation of the dues, which has covered under the scheme of insurance provided by the respondents. The petitioner's cannot held liable for the Act of the district administration. 5. The learned Senior counsel had also heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 , relating to the issue of claim under the Insurance policy floated by the respondent herein. 5. The learned Senior counsel had also heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 , relating to the issue of claim under the Insurance policy floated by the respondent herein. He would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically held that the dispute which relates only to interpretation of the documents could be made by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and merely because some disputed questions of fact had arisen for consideration, the same need not be a ground to refuse to entertain a Writ Petition in all cases as a matter of Rule. Therefore, he would submit that the reasons for rejection given by the respondents are all assailed only based upon the interpretation of the Insurance Policy and therefore, the Writ Petitioner need not be relegated to the Civil Court and this Court can decide the issue. 6. He had further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Council, Neemuch vs. Mahadeo Real Estate & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 738 and contend that in the facts of the present case, if this Court comes to a conclusion that the decision taken by the respondent had been made without understanding the classes of the Insurance Policy and the same is vitiated by irrationality by applying the principle of “wednesbury unreasonableness”, then this Court can interfere exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. He had further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The D.F.O. South Kheri & Ors. vs. Ram Sanehi Singh, 1971 (3) SCC 864 to contend that a Writ Petition can be maintained against the public authority even if the right of claim arose out of a contract. In the present case, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is not disputed that the petitioner had availed the benefit of a Insurance Policy and the supply of materials to the overseas buyer was made during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. In the present case, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is not disputed that the petitioner had availed the benefit of a Insurance Policy and the supply of materials to the overseas buyer was made during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. It cannot also be disputed that the amount due and payable to the petitioner by the oversea buyer was not paid and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be protected under the cover of the Insurance Policy and be indemnified for the loss that had occurred to the petitioner and hence, he would seek this Court to set aside the order impugned herein and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in a proper perspective. 7. Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the claim of the petitioner involves primary disputed question of fact which could only be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court after examining the oral and documentary evidences. He would further submit that there has been an inordinate delay in submission of over due statements contrary to the Insurance Policy. Further, the shipments have been made by the petitioner even when there was over due payment for the previous shipment to the respective overseas buyers. The Policy envisages that the insurance would not cover the claims of payment in respect of supplies to an overseas buyer who had already been in due of payment for the previous shipment. The reason for the non-payment at the end of the oversea buyer had not been enumerated by the petitioner. Further, the communications between the petitioner and the buyers in respect of payment were not produced. Even though the claim was repudiated initially the petitioner without challenging the same had been repeatedly approaching the respondent after each and every rejection and the present impugned orders had been made reiterating the earlier rejections, that there is no provision under the Insurance Policy to condone the belated claim as made by the petitioner. He would further submit that there is no arbitrary rejection of claim. 8. He would further submit that there is no arbitrary rejection of claim. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the entire claim made by the petitioner arose out of an Insurance Policy which is primarily a contract between the petitioner and the respondents and in that context, he would submit that when the claim arises out of a contract, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintainable. There can be no violation of any Articles 14, 19 & 21 as claimed by the petitioner. He had further relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. vs. Kurien E. Kalathil & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 293 and contended that the dispute relating to the interpretation of the terms and conditions to a contract could not be agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the same is only a matter for adjudication by a Civil Court or in an arbitration proceedings if provided so under the contract. He had further relied upon a judgment of a Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noble Resources Ltd. vs. State of Orissa & Anr. (2006) 10 SCC 236 that disputed question of facts requiring the appreciation of evidence through witnesses were necessary it would not be proper to decide the said dispute in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment had also discussed the various judgments including the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 . For the same proposition, he had also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 728 . Further relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MP Power Management Company Limited vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 728 . Further relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MP Power Management Company Limited vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited & Ors. (2023) 2 SCC 703 , he would contend that the State can be called upon to honour its obligations for making payments, unless there is a serious and genuine dispute raised relating to the liability of the State to make such payments. In the present case, he would submit that there is a serious and genuine dispute as regards to the failure of payment by the overseas buyer. The petitioner had not produced any such documents showing that there was a genuine claim as regards to the non-payment by the oversea buyer. 9. He further relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.1874 of 2021 to contend that the adjudication of the disputed facts relating to the contractual obligations would not be entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that the said order was made when a similar claim made by one of the parties which was entertained by the learned Single Judge and the same had been set aside in an appeal filed by the respondent before the Division Bench. He would further distinguish the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 , by stating that in the said case, there was no dispute that the buyer had failed to make the payment. Infact, the Hon'ble Apex Court had recorded a finding that the overseas buyer had not made the payment and the Government which stood as a guarantor had also failed to honour its guarantee. According to him, therefore the judgment may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, he would pray this Court to dismiss these Writ Petitions. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 11. It is not disputed that the claim made by the petitioner arose out of an Insurance Policy. Hence, he would pray this Court to dismiss these Writ Petitions. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 11. It is not disputed that the claim made by the petitioner arose out of an Insurance Policy. Insurance is a species of commercial transactions arising out of a contract entered between the insurer and insured. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner was mainly that the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents on the claim made by the petitioner all relates to the interpretation of the policy. But on the other hand, the claim of the respondent is that there is a delay in submission of the overdue statements, which had not been explained, the shipments made by the buyer even when the previous shipments were overdue. The shipments made to the buyer covered under the Insurance Policy, when there was a over due payment for the earlier shipments would dis-entitle the petitioner to claim under the policy. The reason for non-payment by the overseas buyer was not forthcoming. 12.A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which had been relied upon by the learned Senior counsel in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 , would indicate that the non- payment of the buyer and the failure of the guarantor to make good the non- payment of the buyer was not disputed. In the present case, the same remains disputed as the petitioner had not produced any documents before this Court to substantiate its claim that the buyer had not made the payments. 13.A perusal of the terms and conditions of the policy would also indicate the various obligations at the end of the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that the said obligation of the petitioner have not been fulfilled. These are pure question of facts, which are being disputed by the respective parties. This does not involve any interpretation of the terms and conditions in deciding the claim. Hence, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner to contend that this Court under Article 226 can decide the dispute cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. This does not involve any interpretation of the terms and conditions in deciding the claim. Hence, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner to contend that this Court under Article 226 can decide the dispute cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is useful to refer to the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MP Power Management Company Ltd. vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited & Ors. (2023) 2 SCC 703 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking into consideration of the various earlier judgments passed by it had culled out various points in respect of the issue as to whether under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court can dwell upon a dispute between the parties, which arise out of a contract. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:- 82. We may cull out our conclusions in regard to the points, which we have framed: 82.1. It is, undoubtedly, true that the writ jurisdiction is a public law remedy. A matter, which lies entirely within a private realm of affairs of public body, may not lend itself for being dealt with under the writ jurisdiction of the Court. 82.2. The principle laid down in Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 116 that in the case of a non-statutory contract the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract and the decisions, which are purported to be followed, including Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, (1977) 3 SCC 457 , may not continue to hold good, in the light of what has been laid down in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 and as followed in the recent judgment in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 847. 82.3. The mere fact that relief is sought under a contract which is not statutory, will not entitle the respondent State in a case by itself to ward off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the contract, if the complaining party is able to establish that the action/inaction is, per se, arbitrary. 82.4. 82.3. The mere fact that relief is sought under a contract which is not statutory, will not entitle the respondent State in a case by itself to ward off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the contract, if the complaining party is able to establish that the action/inaction is, per se, arbitrary. 82.4. An action will lie, undoubtedly, when the State purports to award any largesse and, undoubtedly, this relates to the stage prior to the contract being entered into (See Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 ). This scrutiny, no doubt, would be undertaken within the nature of the judicial review, which has been declared in the decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 . 82.5. After the contract is entered into, there can be a variety of circumstances, which may provide a cause of action to a party to the contract with the State, to seek relief by filing a writ petition. 82.6. Without intending to be exhaustive, it may include the relief of seeking payment of amounts due to the aggrieved party from the State. The State can, indeed, be called upon to honour its obligations of making payment, unless it be that there is a serious and genuine dispute raised relating to the liability of the State to make the payment. Such dispute, ordinarily, would include the contention that the aggrieved party has not fulfilled its obligations and the Court finds that such a contention by the State is not a mere ruse or a pretence. 14. A reading of the said conclusion would clearly envisage the law that a Writ Petition can be maintained even in a contract under certain circumstances. Paragraph 82.6 would imply that the State can be called upon to honour its obligations for making the payment, but however, the same is also circumscribed to a case, where there is no serious and genuine dispute relating to the liability to make such payment, if such dispute is not a mere ruse or a pretense. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that the availability of an alternative remedy should also be borne in mind by the Court in deciding such dispute between the parties. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that the availability of an alternative remedy should also be borne in mind by the Court in deciding such dispute between the parties. 15. I had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No.67 of 2014, wherein I have already held by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain , AIR 1966 SC 1644 that the Insurance is a species of a commercial transactions arising out of a contract of indemnify and therefore, held that the Writ Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the disputed questions of facts raised by the respective parties. 16. As I have already found that the issue does not merely relate only to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, but also includes disputed questions of facts such as the delayed claim made by the petitioner and the further disputed question of fact particularly relating to the non-payment of dues by the overseas buyer on the terms of the policy, I am of the view that this Court cannot resolve the said dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it would be proper for the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for remedying its grievances. 17. In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for in these Writ Petitions and accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court seeking redressal of its grievances. If the petitioner chooses to approach the Civil Court by applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court shall exclude the period of pendency of these Writ Petitions while computing the period of limitation in entertaining such Suit. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.