face of the said notice, I would accept, however, the plea of the counsel for the FCI for a joint inspection to be made in the presence of the petitioners 3 and 4 and at that time, the millers are also entitled to raise issues regarding storage and any possible ramification, affecting the quality of the grains over which the millers had no control. The joint inspection shall be done on a date specified within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and delivered for analysis before Central Grain Analytical Laboratory at New Delhi. A decision shall be taken within one week from the date of inspection. The outcome of this inspection and report will govern the rights of the parties for making fresh supplies to the FCI. If it is found that the rejection was justified, the further right of supplies does not arise, for, it will be competent under the contract for the FCI to communicate that the miller could be blacklisted. On the other hand, if the quality is found to be not below the rejection limit, the petitioner shall be entitled to insist on fresh supplies to FCI without any let or hindrance. Any loss that may have entailed by a wrong decision already passed and for the loss of business will be consequential and the matter of adjudication could be resorted by an arbitral process which either party may resort to. Since FCI itself is not a party to the arbitral agreement the arbitration must be understood as an arbitration where a right to demand damages arises against the State agency with whom the millers have contracted. If there is a claim against FCI which is
