UNREPORTED Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 13.10.2006 we heard this matter at length and at that time we had recorded the statement of counsel for the parties. Today it has been contended before us by the appellant that from the perusal of clause 42 of the Contract, it seems that the clause does not envisage termination of contract within a period of five years from 20th January, 2005 to 19th January, 2010. Clause 42 is as under :-

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has invested Rs.2,40,00,000/- for purchasing four luxury Volvo buses and, therefore, the respondent must act inconsonance with the principle of natural justice. It has also been contended that the requirement of law is that a duty is cast on the respondent to act fairly, justly and reasonably even in contractual matters. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. Vs. State of UP and ors. AIR 1991 SC 537. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has contended that before clause 42, clause 41 envisages reference of matter to arbitration and in any event of the matter the contract being not statutory in nature, the appellant's case would not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Ghulam Mohd. Dar and Anr. (2004) 12 SCC 327, National Textile Corporation and Ors. Vs. Haribox Swalram and Ors. (2004) 9 SCC 786 and Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 293.

(3.) What has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent is that there was no fixed period of five years and, therefore, the word "The Contract can be terminated by either party by giving 60 days written notice" has to be read separately thereby giving a power to the respondent to terminate the contract even before expiry of period of five years by either party by giving a notice of sixty days in writing. Even if we agree with the submission of the counsel for the respondent then what would be the effect of subsequent words in clause 42 which are to the following effect :