CWP No. 911 of 2015 (O&M). Case: Agros Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | CWP No. 911 of 2015 (O&M) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, Baljeet Singh and Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocates and For Respondents: Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General |
| Judges | Hemant Gupta and Lisa Gill, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 14, 19(1)(g), 21 |
| Judgement Date | July 09, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 06.01.2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby contract for affixation of High Security Registration Plates was terminated for the violations said to have been committed by the Concessionaire i.e. the petitioners. The Concessionaires were further debarred for minimum five years from participating in any bidding process to be conducted by the State of Punjab to manufacture, sell, distribute or affix High Security Registration Plates in the State of Punjab.
2. The said order of termination was proceeded by a show cause notice dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure P-18) which in turn make reference of continued violation and dis-obedience of the directions issued by the Office of State Transport Commissioner to the petitioners. The petitioners were instructed to start the office and workshop at each sub division level within 15 days and to start affixing security plates, failing which serious note of the violation shall be taken and no hesitation will be shown to cancel the agreement executed with the petitioners.
3. The petitioners were earlier issued notices on 14.05.2014 (Annexure P-6); 01.08.2014 (Annexure P-12); 20.08.2014 (Annexure P-14) and 08.09.2014 (Annexure P-16) calling upon the petitioners to set up facility of affixing of Security plates at the sub-division level and also communicated the complaints about the snap locks.
4. The concession agreement between the parties dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) contains a dispute resolution mechanism including suspension and termination of the agreement. The relevant clauses read as under:
"7.4.1 Save where expressly stated to the contrary in this Agreement, any dispute, difference or controversy of whatever nature howsoever arising under, out of or in relation to this Agreement and so notified in writing by either Party to the other (the "Dispute") in the first instance shall be attempted to be resolved amicably in accordance with the conciliation procedure set forth herein below. Provided that the Party claiming dispute resolution shall issue a notice in writing of at least thirty (30) days to the other Party informing it of its intention of initiating dispute resolution procedure.
7.4.2 In the event of any dispute between the Parties, such Dispute shall be referred to the State Transport Commissioner of the State Government and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Concessionaire, for amicable settlement. Upon such reference, the said two persons shall meet not later than 7 (seven) days of the date of such request to discuss and attempt to amicably resolve the Dispute. If such meeting does not take place within the said period or the Dispute is not amicably settled within 15 (fifteen) days of such meeting between the said two persons, either Party may refer the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7.5.
7.4.3 If the Dispute is not resolved as evidenced by the signing of the written terms of settlement within 30 (thirty) working days of the aforesaid notice in writing, or such longer period as may be mutually agreed by the Parties, then the provisions of Clause 7.5 shall apply. 7.5 Arbitration
7.5.1 Any Dispute which is not resolved amicably as provided herein above shall be finally decided by reference to arbitration by a Board of Arbitrators, appointed pursuant to Clause 7.5.2 below. Such arbitration shall be held in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration and shall be subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and any amendments thereto.
7.5.2 There shall be a Board of three arbitrators of whom each party shall select one and the third arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration.
7.5.7 This Agreement and rights and obligations of the Parties shall remain in full force and effect pending the Award in any arbitration proceeding hereunder."
5. At the outset, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has raised an argument that the dispute between the parties are required to be adjudicated upon through an arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause contained in the agreement executed between the parties. It is further argued that the contract of affixation of high security registration plates is a contract of providing personal services; therefore, even in the case of breach of contract, though there is none, the remedy of the petitioners is to seek damages. It is sought to be argued that in the event, order Annexure P-1 is interfered by this Court, the consequence would be enforcement of a contract of personal services of affixation of high security registration plates, which contract cannot be supervised by Court. Thus, even if, there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial