Dismissed

M/S B.S. Trading Services v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2019WRIC/20455/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the termination of a license by the Airport Director for a spiritual shop. Relying on clause 29 of the General Terms & Conditions mandating prior arbitration, the Court held that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked as the parties must first approach the Dispute Resolution Committee.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to invoke the Dispute Resolution Committee as per clause 29.

M/S B.S. Trading Services Vs Union of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20455 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S B.S. Trading Services Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shakti Swarup Nigam,Alok Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Tapeshwari Prasad,Vijay Kumar Pathak

¶5

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

This petition for writ is preferred to question the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Airport Director, Lal Bahadur Shashtri International Airport, Varanasi. Under the order aforesaid the Director has terminated the license granted in favour of the petitioner pertaining to spiritual & religious shop in checking area.

¶7

The petitioner is having the license in pursuance to the agreement arrived between the parties, to which General Terms & Conditions, placed on record by the Airport Authority of India, are applicable.

¶8

As per clause 29 of the General Terms & Conditions of contract all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning the agreement shall, in the first instance, be referred to a Dispute Resolution Committee setup at the airports, for which a written application is required to be obtained from the party and the points clearly spelt out. The provision aforesaid further provides to have arbitral proceedings, if the dispute remains unsolved within a period of 45 days before the Dispute Resolution Committee.

¶9

We are of the considered opinion that in light of the dispute redressal mechanism provided under clause 29 of the General Terms & Conditions, it would not be appropriate to invoke writ jurisdiction vested with this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that there is a fragrant violation of the principles of natural justice, therefore the remedy provided under clause 29 of the General Terms & Conditions may be ignored.

¶11

It is a writ court, which entertains a petition for writ only if there is a violation of principles of natural justice, if an order is without jurisdiction, if the action taken is shockingly arbitrary and if vires of any provision is questioned. But in the eventuality of the aforesaid, except the eventuality relating to vires, it is discretion of the court either to entertain the petition

¶12

for writ or to leave the person concerned to avail appropriate remedy.

¶13

In the case in hand, we do not find any such reason to deviate from settled principle relating to approaching the writ court for exhausting of available remedy.

¶14

The petition is dismissed.

¶15

The petitioner is, however, at liberty to invoke the Dispute Resolution Committee provided under clause 29 of the General Terms & Conditions. If the petitioner submits an application for reference, as per clause 29 aforesaid, then the dispute be referred to the Dispute Redressal Committee expeditiously, as for as possible within a period of one week from the date of submission of the application.

¶16

Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Advocate is present for respondent no. 2 and 3.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.3.2019 Pkb/

¶18

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) (Govind Mathur,C. J.)

M/S B.S. Trading Services v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S B.S. Trading Services v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ujma Khatoon Alias Astha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sri Maithil Brahman Sanskrit Pathshala and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kunwar Sain and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vinod Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and Others

Seema Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 25 Others

M/S Target Centre Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko.