VAHINI IRRIGATION PRIVATE LIMITED (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956) Vs. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2013 passed in WP No. 26589/2013 is the subject matter of this appeal. Before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner who is the appellant herein had assailed the notice dated 15.06.2013 (Annexure -A) issued by the respondent -Corporation to the appellant. The facts leading to the issuance of the impugned notice can be briefly stated in the following manner; The appellant herein had entered into an agreement with the respondent -Corporation dated 23.03.2013. The agreement was for utilization of the buses belonging to the Corporation for the transportation of luggage and by way of courier service. The terms and conditions of the agreement dated 23.03.2013 are at Annexure -K. The contract was for a period of five years commencing from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2018. In terms of the said agreement, the appellant had also provided a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,56,60,000/ -. The contract also envisaged that license fee to an extent of Rs. 52,20,000/ - per month had to be paid to the Corporation with 10% annual increase in terms of the schedule mentioned in the contract. Contending that the appellant herein had not deposited the license fee in accordance with the agreement, final notice dated 15.06.2013 was issued to the appellant The said notice was impugned by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter has opined that the dispute is one which has to be examined by the Civil Court and cannot be considered in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, while reserving liberty to the appellant to avail of any other appropriate remedy, having regard to the dispute relating to contract, the appellant was also granted time to deposit the amounts mentioned in the demand notice within a period of one week from the date of the said order. If the said amount was to be deposited, then the Corporation would not terminate the license. It is not brought to our notice that since the amount had not been deposited, the termination of the contract had also been made by the respondent -Corporation.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Corporation has stated that since the order of the learned Single Judge was not complied with by the appellant, the Corporation had no other alternative but to terminate the contract and that steps would also be initiated for calling tenders to grant a fresh contract to the eligible person.