MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was given a contract by the respondents whereby the buses of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation would stop at the petitioner s restaurant. The contract expired on 12.10.2010, but was renewed upto 08.12.2013. A notice dated 25.08.2011 has been issued to the petitioner indicating termination of the contract by 30.09.2011. The notice also indicated that a fresh tender notice is being floated and that the petitioner is invited to participate in the fresh tender process. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of the notice dated 25.08.2011, has filed the present writ petition contending that the notice terminating the contract is in gross violation of the contract that was entered between the parties which contemplated that if the petitioner is not complying with the terms and condition, it can be put to task by imposition of penalty at the rate of Rs.1000/- and that the contract can only be terminated under clause 22 by giving six months notice.

(2.) Be that as it may. The Court finds that the petitioner was not only the person who was given the notice, but other roadside owners on the highway were also given similar notice and that the contract was terminated on account of various reasons, namely, construction of flyovers and various facilities not being granted by certain restaurant owners, etc. etc. and consequently, the Corporation thought it fit to revise their contract by issuing a fresh advertisement. The Court finds that the contract has an arbitration clause and if the petitioner is aggrieved, it can invoke the arbitration clause. The Court finds that it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.