Delhi High Court
M/S South Delhi Distributors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 14 July, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 14.07.2014
W.P.(C) 984/2014 & CM 1976/2014
M/S SOUTH DELHI DISTRIBUTORS ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Richa Kapoor and Mr A.K. Hosle, Advocates
For the Respondents : Ms Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel with Ms Sana Ansari, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the notice inviting tender for
running a chemist shop at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi-
110095. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner has been
running the shop, which has been made the subject of the tender, under a
licence from 2008 to 2011 which was extended for a further period of three
years upto 11.03.2014 and under the said licence agreement, the petitioner is
entitled to a final extension of three years from 2014 to 2017. It is further
the case of the petitioner that despite the fact that the petitioner is running a
chemist shop at the said hospital and licence fee is being paid in terms of the
original licence, extended from time to time, without there being any
termination of the licence, the respondents have issued notice inviting tender
for running the very chemist shop which the petitioner is running. This,
according to the petitioner, is not at all permissible in law.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the
licence of the petitioner stands terminated by efflux of time. However, no
specific notice terminating the licence of the petitioner has been given in
terms of clause 31 of the licence agreement dated 20.02.2008. Our attention
was also drawn to clause 26 of the said licence agreement which clearly
stipulates as under:-
"26. That in case the licensee seeks further extension of
the license after the expiry of the terms of this license, it
shall be renewed further upon similar terms and
conditions but not more than three consecutive terms."
3. While hearing arguments from the counsel for the parties our attention
was also drawn to clause 33 of the said licence agreement which reads as
under:-
"33. That all disputes and differences arising out or in any
way concerning to this deed except those the decisions
whereof or otherwise herein before provided here shall be
referred to the Sole Arbitration of any person nominated
by the Lt. Governor of N.C.T. Delhi or in case his
designation is changed or his office is abolished to the
Sole Arbitration of any person nominated by the officer
who for the time being is entrusted whether or not in
addition to other function with the function of Lt.
Governor of N.C.T. Delhi by whatever designation such
officer may be called. There will be no objection to any
such appointments that the arbitrator so appoints
objections to Lt. Governor that he had to deal with the
matter to which this deed relates and that in the course of
his duties such as Government servant he had expressed
views in all or any of the matters in dispute or differences.
The award of the Arbitrator so appointed shall be final
and binding on the parties."
4. In terms of the said clause, it is evident that the disputes and
differences arising between the parties concerning the licence agreement
have to be referred to Arbitration. Both the parties are willing to go in for
arbitration to sort out the disputes and differences between them. We are of
the view that unless and until the arbitration is concluded and a decision is
taken by the Arbitral Tribunal, there can be no progress in the notice inviting
tender. Both the parties agree that the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi
may nominate the Arbitrator within two weeks. We also hope that the
arbitration proceedings are concluded within two months thereafter.
5. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. However, we make it
clear that the notice inviting tender shall not be proceeded with till the expiry
of 15 days from the date of communication of the award to the parties by the
Arbitrator. Both the parties are at liberty to approach this Court in case the
grievance still survives. We also make it clear that we have not expressed
our view on the merits of the dispute between the parties.
Dasti under the signature of Court Master to counsel for both the
parties.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JULY 14, 2014
dn
