Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/952/2022 on 7 June, 2022
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 952 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.R. Joshi, Birwajit Dubey & S. Banerji, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:-
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated March 06, 2022, issued by the Respondent No. 2.
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned Letter issued by the Respondent No. 3.
(iii) Expunge the name of AECOM from the Impugned Order dated March 06, 2022, issued by the Respondent No. 2.
(iv) Hold that the entire actions initiated and taken by the Respondents of black-listing of the Petitioner are bad in law and hence deserve to be quashed and set aside.
(v) Direct the Respondent No. 3 to refund the INR 44.59 Lakh to the petitioner.
Order dated 06.03.2022, which has been challenged in this writ petition, is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Perusal of the said order reveals that name of petitioner has been included in the blacklist and he has been debarred from participating in any tender process for a period of three years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in disregard of principle of natural justice.
Per contra, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has relied upon Clause 8.3 of General Conditions of Contract, which reads as under:-
"8.3 Dispute Settlement: Any dispute or difference arising out of this Contract or in connection therewith which cannot be amicably settled according to Clause GC 8.2 shall be finally settled under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed in accordance with the said Rules. The arbitration shall take place in the location specified in the SC. The resulting award shall be final and binding on the Parties and shall be in lieu of any other remedy."
Based on Clause 8.3 of General Conditions of Contract, Mr. C.S. Rawat submits that since dispute raised by petitioner arises out of a contract, therefore, such dispute can be referred for arbitration.
This submission is not disputed by Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He, however, submits that some reasonable time be given to the petitioner for invoking arbitration clause and limited protection till such time be given to him so that he may not be prevented from participating in any tender process floated by other Organisations.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is granted.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to invoke arbitration clause, as contained in Clause 8.3 of General Conditions of Contract. For this purpose, six weeks time is granted to petitioner. For a period of six weeks, order dated 06.03.2022 passed by respondent 2, shall be kept in abeyance.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 07.06.2022 Aswal