Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) On or about 16-9-1981 a contract was entered into by and between the petitioners and the respondents for manufacture and supply of Monoblock Concrete Sleepers containing an arbitration clause which reads thus :- "Arbitration - In the event of any dispute or difference arising in connection with this contract the same shall be referred to the 'Arbitrator' to be appointed by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach in terms of provision 2900 of the Indian Railway standard conditions of contract (copy attached with Railway Board's above acceptance of tender letter) and the award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this contract."
(2.) According to the petitioners, pursuant to the said agreement, they have manufactured and supplied a large number of Railway Sleepers to the respondents. By a letter dated 3-10-1991 the Railway administration informed the petitioners that the Railway Board has fixed the rate of concrete sleeper which would also applicable to the case of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the said purported letter is not applicable in the instant case as said circular cannot be given retrospective effect and otherwise arbitrary and, thus, they should not be asked to take recourse to the Arbitration Agreement. Reliance in this connection has been placed on A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and Anr., Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana and Ors. and Govind Prasad v. R.G. Parsad and Ors.
(3.) It is now a well settled that a writ court normally does not entertain a writ application when there exists an arbitration agreement. The matter relating to performance of contract by the contracting parties, in absence of any arbitrariness which would attract the wrath of Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not come within the purview of power of judicial review of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same does not contend any public law character.;