As per case facts, the petitioner's excavator suffered damage in an accident at a remote site. After reporting the incident and filing a claim with the insurance company, surveyor reports ... confirmed the damage. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim, citing violations of policy conditions and questioning discrepancies. The petitioner contended this decision was arbitrary and unlawful, as it ignored the surveyor reports and their explanations. The question arose whether the insurance company's repudiation, based on alleged policy violations and without adequately considering survey reports, was arbitrary, unreasoned, and legally unsustainable, and if the Writ Petition challenging such a decision was maintainable. Finally, the Court held that the insurance company's repudiation was arbitrary, unreasoned, and legally unsustainable. It emphasized that a Writ Petition is maintainable against arbitrary actions of a State instrumentality, even in contractual disputes, especially when core facts are undisputed and the issue is policy interpretation. The Court found the reporting delay excusable due to the remote location and ruled that grounds for repudiation not mentioned initially cannot be added later.