Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 17 December, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010207852021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/341/2021
M/S BARUA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DR. B. BAROOAH ROAD,
GUWAHATI-781007, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2: DIPANKAR BARUA
S/O- SHRI S.C. BARUA
R/O- ANIL NAGAR
GUWAHATI-781024
DIRECTOR OF M/S. BARUA AND COMPANY LTD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE BOARD OF SPORTS OF ASSAM
R.G. BARUAH SPORTS COMPLEX
NEHRU STADIUM GUWAHATI-781007
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
3:THE SECRETARY
BOARD OF SPORTS OF ASSAM
R.G. BARUAH SPORTS COMPLEX
NEHRU STADIUM GUWAHATI-781007
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Oral
17.12.2021
Heard Mr. K.N. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants. Also
heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam for the respondents.
The Board of Sports, Assam, which is a statutory authority, had leased out
a guest house named Radha Gobinda Baruah Guest House (which was popularly
known as "The Stadium Guest House") and the appurtenant land to the present
appellants vide lease deed dated 04.05.2000 for a period of 20 (twenty) years.
According to the writ appellants, there was a provision in the lease deed which
provided for renewal of the lease for another twenty years before expiry of the
initial period. Since the lease deed was not renewed and in fact the application
of the appellants for extension of the lease deed was rejected, the writ
appellants filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No. 2461/2020,
praying for the following reliefs:
" In the premises aforesaid, the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to call for the records of the case and issue a Rule calling
up the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of
Certiorari should not be issued and the letters dated 02.05.2020 and
02.06.2020 issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexures LIII and LV
respectively) should not be set aside and quashed and as to why a Writ
in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent
nos. 2 and 3 to recall/ cancel/ forbear from giving effect to the aforesaid
letters dated 02.05.2020 and 02.06.2020 and be further pleased to direct
the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to immediately extend the lease of the
property in question for a further period of 20 years up to 03.05.2040, as
stipulated in the lease deed dated 04.05.2000 and upon hearing the
parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and upon hearing the
parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or to pass such further
or other orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
Page No.# 3/4
AND
In the interim, be pleased to stay the operation of the letters dated
02.05.2020 and 02.06.2020 issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexures -
LIII and LV respectively) and restrain the respondents from evicting the
petitioners from the leased premises and allow the petitioners to run the
hotel in accordance with the terms and conditions o the lease deed and
MOU, both dated 04.05.2000 (Annexure - IV and V respectively) and pass
such other interim orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper,
in the interest of justice.".
The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, wherein
ultimately it was directed that the petitioners shall approach the Arbitral Forum
within 60(sixty) days from the date of the order i.e., 03.11.2021. This was done
as admittedly the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.05.2000 entered
into between the parties had an arbitration clause.
The admitted position is that the Memorandum of Understanding does
have an arbitration clause and the learned Single Judge has already directed the
writ appellants to approach the Arbitral Forum, yet the writ appellants are
aggrieved by certain findings which have been made by the learned Single
Judge which are findings on the merit of the case, states the writ appellant and
therefore it may prejudice their case before the Arbitral Tribunal.
After hearing the learned counsel for both sides for some time, since both
Mr. K.N. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. D. Saikia,
learned Advocate General, Assam have agreed to settle the matter through an
arbitration proceeding, we deem it fit and proper to observe that any
observation which has been made by the learned Single Judge in his judgment
and order dated 02.11.20211 shall not be considered by the Arbitral Tribunal in
its proceedings. In fact this is also the observation made by the learned Single
Judge himself in Paragraph No. 43 of the judgment and order dated 02.11.2021.
Since the time granted to the writ appellants by the learned Single Judge is
Page No.# 4/4
coming to an end on 1st January, 2022, Mr. K.N. Chowdhury, learned senior
counsel for the writ appellants prays that this time be extended. All the same,
Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General has given a statement before this Court
that in fact extension of the lease period may not be necessary as the Board has
already made a request to the writ appellants for appointment of their arbitrator
and have already sent the name of their arbitrator.
Since both sides have agreed to resolve the dispute through arbitration
and keeping the statement of Mr. D. Saikia into consideration, but for abundant
precaution, we extend this period by another three weeks i.e., 21 (twenty one)
days. The parties shall now do the needful on or before 22.01.2022.
With the above observations, this writ appeal stands disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
