S RAMINDER SINGH Vs. NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short the 'Act') against the National Capital Territory of Delhi (for short "NCT of Delhi") and Engineer-in-Chief, PWD (for short 'PWD'), praying for an ad-interim order restraining the respondent PWD, its agents, etc. including the National Highway Authority of India (for short "NHAI"), from taking down or defacing the advertisements boards or allowing any third party, including the National Highway Authority of India, to display their boards on the NH-II Road stretch from Ashram Crossing to Apollo Hospital (for short 'the road in question').

(2.) Petitioner claims itself to be a voluntary agency, planting and maintaining trees and shrubs in and around stretches of roads, round-abouts and areas belonging to and owned by the government/local authorities. Petitioner entered into separate agreements/memorandums of understanding for different stretches of roads in Delhi, numbering 15, on different dates (as detailed in para 17 of the petition), with respondent No.1, including the road NH II stretching from the Ashram crossing to Apollo Hospital as well as NH-8 from the domestic Airport upto Radisson Hotel and in return for the services provided, petitioner is permitted to display advertisement boards for others through kiosks on electric poles. It is pleaded that vide agreement dated 12.2.1999, Secretary, PWD, through its Deputy Director (Horticulture), assigned to the petitioner work in respect of development/maintenance of-piece of land on NH-II from Ashram Crossing upto Apollo Hospital, for a period of 5 (five) years, from the date of the Agreement, i.e. upto 2003. Clause 21 of the Agreement provides that all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this Agreement, shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Secretary, PWD. or his nominee. The petitioner executed the work to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents and incurred huge expenditure. On 8.1.2002, petitioner noticed that kiosks put up by it and displayed at NH-8, i.e. Daula Kuan round-about to Haryana Boarder have been removed. On enquiry petitioner came to know that NHAI had displaced the kiosks on the said road. Petitioner recorded his grievance by addressing a communication dated 9.1.2002 to respondent No.1, NCT of Delhi, calling upon them to restore status-quo ante and take action against NHAI. On 9.1.2002, petitioner, in terms of Clause 21 of the Agreement, served a notice on the respondents, invoking arbitration clause and calling upon the Secretary, PWD, to adjudicate, the disputes. Petitioner apprehended that respondent PWD may pull down the remaining kiosks put up by it in terms of other agreements, as detailed in para 17 of the petition, therefore, this petition under Section 9 of the Act.

(3.) By order dated 11.1.2002, notice of the petition was issued and by way of ex-parte ad-interim order, respondents, their agents, officers, etc. were restrained from violating the terms of Clauses 16(b) & (c) of the Agreement dated 12.2.1999. On 7.2.2002, learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that similar relief was sought by the petitioner by way of a writ petition in which ex-parte relief was declined and this fact was concealed by the petitioner. Respondent was directed to move an appropriate application. Interim order dated 11.1.2002 was continued. On 26.2.2002, petitioner moved application (IA.2023/2002) seeking clarification of the orders dated 11.1.2002 and 7.2.2002, pleading that in place of the word "agent", the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) be substituted as it was working in its capacity as the agent of respondent No.2. The request of the petitioner was declined on the ground that NHAI is an autonomous authority and there was no document to show that NHAI is the agent of respondent No.2. It was, however, observed, "if it is found at any stage that NHAI has been acting as an agent of respondents, appropriate action against NHAI will be taken in the light of the orders dated 11.1.2002 and 7.2.2002." Petitioner, thereafter, moved IA.2270/2002 under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, for impleading NHAI as a party to the petition and by order dated 29.5.2002, NHAI was ordered to be impleaded as a party and they were asked to file their reply. It was also observed that NHAI shall be bound by the interim order dated 26.2.2002.