[2025:RJ-JP:37018] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13497/2025 M/s Pious Placement And Trading Services, Plot No.22, Awasiya Yojana, Bhairav Vihar, Hathoj, Jhotwara, Jaipur - 302012 Through Its Proprietor Shri Uttam Kumar Yadav S/o Shrichand Yadav, Aged About 59 Years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Through Its General Manager (Personnel And Administration), Saras Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur. 2. Metro Dairy Plant, Govindgarh, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur Through Its Incharge. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 11/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 05.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2, has submitted that work order dated 16.11.2023 has been terminated and the petitioner has been barred from participating in the future tenders, without following the principles of natural justice, terms and conditions as prescribed under the contract, more specifically numbering 36 whereby, prior to termination, an advance notice of thirty days has to be served. 2. It is further submitted that the termination letter is issued at the behest of non-contracting party. Learned counsel for the [2025:RJ-JP:37018] (2 of 3) [CW-13497/2025] petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner cannot avail the alternate remedy, as the same is barred, for the reason that in the matter at hand there is grave violation of principles of natural justice and the actions of the respondents are exceeding the jurisdiction so granted to it. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. However, upon perusal of the terms and conditions of the Tender/Bid notice issued by Rajasthan Co-operative Diary Federation Limited more particularly condition No. 40(iii), pertaining to amicable settlement, where it is explicitly stated that if there prevails any dispute and difference, the same can be resolved in accordance with provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 5. It is observed that the system of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), by way of consensus, has been invoked between the parties. In terms of the ADR mechanism, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been duly accepted not only by the petitioner but also by the respondents. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained Code governing arbitral as well as commercial disputes. Once the parties have entered into an arbitral agreement and incorporated an arbitration clause, they are bound thereby. The statute itself provides for interim protection, both prior to and subsequent to the commencement of arbitral proceedings, as well as in relation to the arbitral agreement. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court refrains from entering into the merits of the case and grants liberty to the petitioner to [2025:RJ-JP:37018] (3 of 3) [CW-13497/2025] avail appropriate remedies in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is clarified that no opinion on the merits of the dispute has been expressed, and no prejudice be caused to the petitioner on account of disposal of the present petition. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/s-230