Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2508/2022 on 20 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2508 OF 2022
20TH OCTOBER, 2022
BETWEEN:
M/s Shree Badri Traders .....Petitioner.
And
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1& 2 : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief
Holder.
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned
counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition to seek the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, commanding/ directing the respondent no.3
to demarcate the mining area by fixing the pillars
mentioned in the e-tender, i.e. 32 hectares and
thereafter permit the petitioner to excavate the minor
minerals as per the e-tender and M.O.U. executed
between the parties and in furtherance thereof.
OR IN ALTERNATIVE
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding/ directing the respondent no.3
to pay an amount of Rs.94,23,750 + 1,88,74,500 +
73,29,584/- total amount of Rs.3,56,27,834/- to the
petitioner minus minor minerals excavated by the
petitioner from October 2021 to December 2021 along
with interest from the date of making the payment by
the petitioner to the respondent no.3.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding/ directing an inquiry against the
concerned official of Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd.
and Department of Geology & Mining, Uttarakhand for
committing fraud against the petitioner."
2. The petitioner entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the respondent-Garhwal Mandal Vikas
Nigam, whereunder the mining lease has been granted in
favour of the petitioner. The submission of the petitioner is
that the respondents misrepresented, both with regard to the
area as well as the quantity of mineral, which could be
excavated/ mined. The petitioner has made deposit of large
amounts of money with the respondent-GMVN under the
agreement, and has not been able to carry on the mining
activity as per the mining lease.
3. In the aforesaid background, prayers,as mentioned
hereinabove, have been made.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3, who appears
on advance notice, points out that in the agreement entered
into between the parties, there is an arbitration clause in
clause 96. The relevant part whereof reads as follows:-
"[96] यह की प कारों म वतमान ृ ित - प के अथा र तथा
पां तर के स म िववाद होने पर तथा अ िकसी कार का
िववाद होने पर मामला, म थता ारा िन ा रत िकया जावेगा और
अ उपचार विजत होगा। प कार पर र सहमित से थम प के
ब िनदे शक या उन ारा िल खत म नािमत को एकल
म थ िनयु करते है । एकल म थ यं या उन ारा मनोनीत
िववाद का िन ारण करे गा। म थ िक कायवाही भारतीय
सुलह एवं म थ अिधिनयम 1996 के अंतगत की जावेगी।"
5. A perusal of the petition shows that the nature of
disputes raised in the writ petition would require
determination of facts about which there may be controversy.
Since the petitioner has entered into an agreement which
contains arbitration clause as well, we are not inclined to
entertain the present writ petition. We dismiss the same,
leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of its remedies under
the arbitration agreement. We have not examined the merits
of the dispute raised by the petitioner.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in the
aforesaid terms with liberty, as granted hereinabove.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(R.C. KHULBE, J.)
Dated: 20thOctober, 2022
NISHANT
