RAKESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) THERE had been an agreement between the revision petitioner and the respondent ­ State of Himachal Pradesh, pursuant to which rates of some stationery articles were fixed and it was agreed that the revision petitioner would be supplying such stationery articles at the rates, so fixed, as and when order was placed. There was a clause in the agreement that the revision petitioner would not be supplying such stationery articles to any department of the Government directly. The case of the revision petitioner is that though he was bound, as per the agreement, not to supply the stationery articles to any department of the Government directly, the respondent had been placing the orders with other suppliers for supply of those very stationery articles, the rate contract for which was entered into between the revision petitioner and that this caused loss to him to the tune of Rs.1,22,348/-. He approached the Court for appointment of an Arbitrator, in terms of the agreement. Principal Secretary of Printing and Stationery Department was appointed as Arbitrator by the Sub Judge. The Arbitrator gave his award. The revision petitioner was dissatisfied with that award and so he filed objections alleging that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings. Respondent opposed the objections. Evidence was recorded by the Sub Judge and ultimately the objections were dismissed and the award was made Rule of the Court. Appeal filed by the revision petitioner in the Court of District Judge stands dismissed. Now, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel, representing the revision petitioner, then urged that when there was a clause in the agreement that the revision petitioner would not be supplying stationery articles of the type, the rates of which were agreed between the parties, without taking the respondent into confidence, the respondent should have also not procured such stationery articles from other sources. It is alleged that the respondent procured such articles from other sources, which caused loss of Rs.1,22,000/- and odds to the revision petitioner. No doubt, there was a clause in the agreement that the revision petitioner would not be making supplies to the Government Offices, Corporations or Autonomous Bodies, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, during the period of contract if the order was placed by such Office, Corporation, Autonomous Body etc. and that such supplies were to be made only if authorized by the Controller of Printing and Stationery Department, but there was no corresponding obligation on the respondent to procure all the supplies from the revision petitioner.