M/S Vijay Agro vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. And Ors on 24 May, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S Vijay Agro vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. And Ors on 24 May, 2022

$~10, 11 & 12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6780/2020 & CM APPL. 23515/2020
M/S VIJAY AGRO ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Rajeev
Rathee, Ms. Garima Chaudhary,
Mr. Veerendra Kumar and Mr. Gagan
Deep Sharma, Advocates
versus

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP. LTD. AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Batra, Mr. Ankit
Chaddha and Mr. K. M. Vandana,
Advocates for BPCL
Mr. Sanyam Saxena and Ms. Bandana
Grover, Advocates for DTTDC

+ W.P.(C) 7074/2020 & CM APPL. 24080/2020 & CM APPL.
47615/2021
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Batra, Mr. Ankit
Chaddha and Mr. K. M. Vandana,
Advocates

versus

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:25.05.2022
17:09:23
Rathee, Ms. Garima Chaudhary,
Mr. Veerendra Kumar and Mr. Gagan
Deep Sharma, Advocates for R-3

+ W.P.(C) 7085/2020 & CM APPL. 24091/2020
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Batra, Mr. Ankit
Chaddha and Mr. K. M. Vandana,
Advocates
versus

DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanyam Saxena and Ms. Bandana
Grover, Advocates for DTTDC
Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Rajeev
Rathee, Ms. Garima Chaudhary,
Mr. Veerendra Kumar and Mr. Gagan
Deep Sharma, Advocates for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER

% 24.05.2022

1. The instant petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking following reliefs :

"a) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Certiorari and/or quashing Orders dated 22nd October, 2019, passed by Respondent No.2 and common Orders dated 03.09.2020 passed by Shri Dharmesh Sharma, D.J. (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in PPA No. 12 of 2019;

b) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to have the dispute between it and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:25.05.2022 17:09:23 the Petitioner adjudicated as per the procedure laid down in Office Memorandum No. E. No. 4(1)/2013-DPE(GM)/FTS-

1835 dated 22.05.18, of the Government of India."

2. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter "BPCL") submitted that both the parties went for mediation for the purpose of settlement but the same has been failed. It is further submitted that the dispute is between two public sector organisations and both have tried to settle the matter in the past also. After failing to settle the matter in the Mediation Centre, both the parties again tried to settle the matter and resolve the disputes.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of BPCL has given the offer for the settlement to Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter "DTTDC") on 4th April, 2022 and after receiving the said proposal from the BPCL, a meeting was held to consider the proposal by DTTDC. In the meeting, DTTDC rejected the proposal sent by BPCL vide letter dated 23rd May, 2022. The copy of the said letter is handed over during the arguments by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of DTTDC which is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of BPCL showed this Court the copy of Office Memorandum dated 22nd May, 2018 issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India, on subject of "Settlement of commercial disputes between Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) inter se and CPSE(s) and Government Department(s)/Organization(s) - Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of CPSEs Disputes (AMRCD) where under the administrative mechanism for resolution of CPSEs disputes have been spelt Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:25.05.2022 17:09:23 out.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of DTTDC has taken the objection and submitted that the said Office Memorandum is only applicable for the purpose of resolving the disputes between the organisations of Central Government and since DTTDC Ltd. belongs to State Government, the said Office Memorandum is not applicable in the instant matter.

6. In response to the said objection, Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of BPCL brought the attention of this Court on the contents of Office Memorandum, which are reproduced herein below for proper adjudication:

".....Further, in case of a dispute between CPSE and State Government Department/Organization, the above said Committee will comprise the Secretary of the Ministry/Department of the Union to which the CPSE belongs and Secretary-D/o Legal Affairs and a senior officer nominated by the Chief Secretary of the State concerned. In such a case, the matter will be represented before the Committee by the FA of the concerned administrative Ministry/Department and the concerned Principal Secretary of the State Government Department/Organisation.

.....In case where one party (1st party) to the dispute is a Department/Organization of a State Government, the procedure for admitting the dispute will be same as above, however, all meetings in connection with resolution of the dispute will be held in the administrative Ministry/Department (Union) of other party(2nd Party) irrespective of the position of the 1st Party whether as a Claimant or Respondent. The presentation of the issues before the above Committee in this case will be done by the FA of the concerned Administrative Ministry/Department and concerned Principal Secretary of the State Government Department/Organization."

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:25.05.2022 17:09:23

7. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of BPCL submitted that in view of the aforesaid contents of the said Office Memorandum, the objections which have been raised by the learned counsel for DTTDC have no force. It is further submitted that since both the parties have tried their level best to settle the matter but unfortunately failed, for the interest of the parties, the matter may be referred to the Committee constituted as per the Office Memorandum dated 22nd May, 2018.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of DTTDC submitted that the lease rent of the land has not been paid by BPCL directly.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of BPCL vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for DTTDC regarding non- payment of the rent and submitted that the lease rents are being paid to DTTDC by BPCL.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court has also perused the Office Memorandum dated 22nd May, 2018 which has been placed before this Court by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of BPCL.

11. BPCL is directed to pay the lease rent, if any arrears are to be paid, within four weeks.

12. Learned counsel for BPCL submitted that the lease rent, if any, not paid shall be paid on the invoice issued by DTTDC/R-1.

13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the dispute between two Government undertakings should be resolved amicably and both the parties have tried to settle the matter in the past also. Now, since an administrative mechanism is available as per Office Memorandum dated 22nd May, 2018 issued by the Ministry of Heavy Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:25.05.2022 17:09:23 Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India for settling the disputes between the Government Organisation as well as the organisation belongs to the State too, BPCL has decided to invoke AMRCD mechanism by approaching AMRCD committee for settling their disputes with DTTDC Ltd. Learned counsel for DTTDC Ltd. has no objection for settling the disputes.

14. Accordingly, both the parties are directed to approach the Departmental Ministry and after approaching the Departmental Ministry, both the parties shall file appropriate application for resolving the dispute invoking the AMRCD mechanism as per Office Memorandum dated 22 nd May, 2018 within three weeks. AMRCD Committee is also directed to resolve the disputes between both the Government Organisations and take appropriate decisions after hearing both the parties and after perusing the material on record in accordance with law. Both the parties are at liberty to approach before this Court after the decision of the AMRCD Committee.

15. No coercive order shall be passed till the final decision of AMRCD Committee. AMRCD Committee is directed to take a decision preferably within three months and status quo shall be maintained by both the parties till the decision of the committee.

16. Accordingly, the instant petitions are disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J MAY 24, 2022 gs/ak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:25.05.2022 17:09:23

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders