Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Transstroy Bhopal Berasia Sironj ... vs Madhya Pradesh Road Development ... on 17 March, 2016
1
W.P. No. 4884/2016
17.03.2016
Shri Brian D'Silva, Senior Advocate with Shri Sumit
Nema, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Shri Rajas Pohankar, Advocate for the respondent No.5. Heard counsel for the parties on admission. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner for some time, in deference to the observations made during the arguments, the petitioner has now been advised not to press any other reliefs, except prayer clause 7(iii) of the petition, which reads thus:-
"7(iii) Directing the respondent no.2 to hold a Dispute Resolution meeting in terms of Article 44 of the Concession Agreement dated 14.8.2012 and"
The petitioner after the contract termination order dated 21.01.2016 has immediately invoked remedy under Article 44 of the Agreement for dispute resolution. That representation has been submitted by the petitioner on 23.01.2016 and again on 29.02.2016, but, the Competent Authority has not processed the said representation so far, for the reasons best known to it. It is submitted that the petitioner would be more than content if the Competent Authority expedites consideration of the said representations. The petitioner is conscious of the fact that if the matter is required to be proceeded before the Arbitrator by way of arbitration proceedings specified in Article 44.3 of the Agreement, the petitioner would at best end up in getting relief 2 of compensation/damages.
We place on record that the re-tendering process after cancellation of contract with the petitioner, has commenced on 21.01.2016; and in furtherance thereof Contract has also been awarded to M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. for the work referred to in the said Contract and followed by execution of Agreement between the MPRDC and the new Contractor.
As a result, we dispose of this petition with direction to the Appropriate Authority required to decide representations made by petitioner dated 23.01.2016 and 29.02.2016, for dispute resolution, in terms of Article 44.1; and to also explore the option of conciliation in terms of Article 44.2 of the Agreement which was executed between the petitioner and MPRDC.
Besides this, nothing more is required to be said in this petition.
The Authority must take final decision not later than one month from today and communicate the decision to the petitioner within the same time. If the decision is adverse to the petitioner or not acceptable, for any reason, the petitioner will be free to invoke remedy of arbitration under Article 44.3 of the Agreement.
Petition disposed of accordingly.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (Sanjay Yadav)
Chief Justice Judge
psm