M/S.Andhra Pradesh State ... vs M/S.Wipro Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 5731 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                    AND

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                   WRIT APPEAL No.1552 of 2014


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


      Heard Mr. N.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant.     None has appeared for the respondent though the

name of Mr. Javed Razack, learned counsel for the respondent is

printed in the cause list.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

29.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ

Petition No.14193 of 2010 filed by the respondent as the writ

petitioner.

3. Respondent had filed the related writ petition raising

the grievance against the appellant for cancelling the purchase

order dated 23.02.2009 and sought for a direction for restoration

of the aforesaid purchase order.

                                   2                           HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                        W.A.No.1552 of 2014

4. The writ petition was contested by the appellant, which

was arrayed as the respondent in the writ proceedings. It was

contended on behalf of the appellant that dispute between the

parties arose out of a contract which should not be adjudicated

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, it was

pointed out that the contract provided for dispute resolution by

way of arbitration.

5. Learned Single Judge took the view that the writ

petition could be entertained even if the contract is a

non-statutory one and even in presence of an arbitration clause.

By the order dated 29.10.2014, learned Single Judge directed the

appellant to take back the products supplied by the respondent

within one (01) month and thereafter to pay the price of the

product to the respondent.

5. We find that by order dated 10.12.2014, the appeal

was admitted for hearing and order of the learned Single Judge

dated 29.10.2014 was stayed.

                                        3                        HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                          W.A.No.1552 of 2014

6. The parties hereunder were governed by a contract

arising out of a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for procurement of

Oracle ERP products and supporting technology components

issued by the appellant.

7. Clause 15 of the tender documents provides for

arbitration in the event of any dispute or difference arising out of

the above tender notice. Clause 15 reads as under:

"15 Arbitration: In the event of a dispute or difference or difference of any nature whatsoever between the vendor and APSFC during the course of the assignment arising as a result of this order, the same will be referred for arbitration to a Board of arbitration. This Board will be constituted prior to the commencement of the arbitration and will comprise two arbitrators and an umpire. Vendor and APSFC will each nominate an arbitrator to the Board and these arbitrators will appoint the umpire. Arbitration will be carried out at a place mutually decided by Vendor and APSFC."

8. When there is a provision for dispute resolution in a

matter of contract by way of arbitration, learned Single Judge

ought not to have invoked the writ jurisdiction, instead learned

Single Judge ought to have relegated the parties to the forum of

arbitration. Present is not only a case of invoking jurisdiction 4 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.1552 of 2014

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a contractual

dispute but it is a case of entertaining a writ petition when there is

a provision for arbitration for dispute resolution. Time and again

Supreme Court has reminded us that though the jurisdiction of

the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

wide, nonetheless in matters of contract in the field of private law

having no statutory flavour, any dispute arising therefrom should

be left to be adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the

parties. This position has been reiterated by the Supreme Court

again in Union of India v. Puna Hindal1.

9. We therefore set aside the order of the learned Single

Judge dated 29.10.2014 and dismiss W.P.No.14193 of 2010.

However, it would be open to the parties to avail their remedy

either under Clause 15 of the contract as extracted above or any

other appropriate forum.

10. Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

1 (2021)10 SCC 690
                                  5                     HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                 W.A.No.1552 of 2014

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

__________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 09.11.2022 KL