Ajay Kumar Walia v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41500 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Walia Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kumar Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Mishra Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶1The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated

03.11.2023 passed by the Executive Engineer, Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur informing the petitioner that his contract for execution of certain civil works has been cancelled in pursuance of an order dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Commissioner, Nagar Nigam and security amount has been forfeited and he has also been debarred for one year.

¶2Learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam points out that under the contract, there is an Arbitration Clause and it is open for the petitioner to avail the said remedy. It is urged that the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the Arbitration Clause.

¶3It is not disputed that under Clause 23, it is open for the parties to get all questions, dispute or differences arising under or out of or in connection with the contract to be settled through mutual discussion and consultations. In case, there is no resolution, the dispute would be referred to the sole Arbitrator by either party. The Arbitrator would be nominated by the Chief Executive Officer, Saharanpur Smart City Limited and the arbitration proceedings have to be conducted as per provisions of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶4Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contract has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner could not execute it within specified time frame. He submits that during the period of contract, there was heavy rainfall on account of which, the contract could not be executed within time frame.

¶5In our opinion, the decision on the above issue requires leading of evidence and its appreciation. The petitioner has efficacious remedy of seeking arbitration in terms of Clause 23 of the Agreement, therefore, we decline to examine the challenge and leave it open for the petitioner to avail the remedy of arbitration or such other remedy as may be advised.

¶6The petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 14.12.2023 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, A.C.J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad