LIBRABUS SERVICE P LTD Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute that has arisen in this case is the cancellation of the petitioners' contract for plying of buses on two inter-State routes. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that a Contract for a fixed period of five years, from 20.1.2005 till 19.1.2010, had been entered into between the parties. Learned Counsel contends that the Contract could be terminated only if the respondent Corporation (DTC) was not satisfied with the performance of the petitioner, or if petitioner had violated the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. The Agreement also contains an arbitration clause, which has not been taken recourse to.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are willing to pay to the DTC a flat rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month per bus in advance, and all expenses will be borne by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Contract was not for a fixed term of five years and was inherently terminable by either party by giving sixty days written notice. Apart from the existence of the alternative remedy by way of Arbitration, the Writ Petition would not be maintainable assuming that a breach had taken place on behalf of the respondents. In this context, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Amritsar Gas Service, (1991) 1 SCC 533; Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1076; Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil, V (2000) SLT 538=III (2000) CLT 229 (SC)=(2000) 6 SCC 293; National Textile Corporation Limited v. Haribox Swalram, IV (2004) SLT 487=III (2004) CLT 68 (SC)=(2004) 9 SCC 786 and State of Jammu and Kashmir v. GhulamMohd. Dar, (2004) 12 SCC 327. All these Judgments recommend that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court ought not to be exercised in contractual matters.