SANTHANA MARIAPPAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges an order dtd. 23/8/2021 of the first respondent by which the petitioner was called upon to remove all the advertising boards/panels on or before 27/8/2021.

(2.) The petitioner states that a tender was floated in relation to the grant of a licence to display advertisements in all buses operating in the Tirunelveli division. Upon submission of a bid, the contract in relation to the above was awarded to the petitioner. Almost immediately thereafter,the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic affected normal life. Therefore, the petitioner requested for an extension of time to make the security deposit. Such request was accepted and the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.30,03,033.00 on 23/12/2020 towards security deposit. For the first eleven month period of the contract, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.1,111.00 + GST for each bus. In effect, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.11,81,193.00 per month. Such payments were made by the petitioner for the months of February and March 2021. However, it is stated that out of the 901 buses, only about 198 buses were plying. Therefore, the petitioner requested that he should be permitted to make payments only in respect of the 198 buses and not the entire 901 bus fleet. In such circumstances, the impugned order was issued resulting in the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr.R.Rajamohan, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited, accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents. He refers to and relies upon the agreement dtd. 11/1/2021 between the petitioner and the respondents. In particular, he points out that Clause 20 of the said agreement contains an arbitration clause. Therefore, he submits that the present dispute should be referred for arbitration by the petitioner.