As per case facts, the Petitioner supplied medical equipment to Respondent No.3 via a GeM tender. After delivery and installation, Respondent No.3 issued a Consignee Receipt and Acceptance Certificate (CRAC), ... obligating payment within ten days. Payment was withheld, and Respondent No.3 subsequently raised complaints about defective equipment, demanding replacement, without initially pursuing arbitration. The Petitioner appealed to the High Court for a Writ of Mandamus, alleging arbitrary withholding of payment by a State instrumentality despite contract completion and acceptance. The question arose whether the High Court should entertain a Writ Petition against a State instrumentality for arbitrary payment withholding after goods acceptance, given an arbitration clause and factual disputes on equipment quality. Finally, the court ruled that State instrumentalities must act fairly under Article 14, and their arbitrary actions in contractual matters are subject to Article 226 jurisdiction, even with an arbitration clause. It found the payment withholding arbitrary and directed payment, without prejudicing the Respondent's right to pursue other remedies regarding equipment performance.