M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of a civil proceeding pending in the Court of the Munsif at Nainital. The parties have filed their pleadings and a request was made to decide the petition at the admission stage itself. Therefore. I am deciding this writ petition at the admission stage in accordance with the Rules of the Court and in response to the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE Respondent No. 3 appears to have filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the Petitioner in the trial court praying for permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner from terminating the contract, by which the Respondent No. 3 had agreed to prove security service to the Petitioner, otherwise than in accordance with law. The Respondent No. 3 and the Petitioner seem to have agreed by a written instrument dated 28 -2 -1985, which was to come into force on 1 -3 -1985, that security services will be provided to the Petitioner for various branches of the Bank on the terms of conditions mentioned in the said instrument The Respondent No. 3 was responsible to make arrangement for protection of life and property including cash, records, installation, fixtures and other movable property within the branches of the Bank premises, where the security was to be posted. The security gunmen were to be chosen from ex -servicemen, ex -para military, ex -Border Security Force or other duly trained personnel. The gunmen had to carry gun -licence and gun, which was to remain with the gunman while on duty. The gunmen were restrained to join Trade Unions or interfere with the working of the Bank in any manner. Numerous duties, which were to be discharged by the gunmen, were assigned to them Clause 13 of the instrument provided that the services of gunmen could be terminated by either side on three month's notice or payment in lieu thereof. The Petitioner seems to have issued a notice to the Respondent No. 3 on 30 -10 -1987 informing him that in exercise of the option contained in para 13 of the instrument the contract of service of security arrangement was terminable with effect from 31 -1 -1988. On receipt of this notice the Respondent No. 3 seems to have filed a civil suit in the court of the Munsif at Nainital. It is averred in the plaint that the Petitioner had approached the Respondent No. 3 to arrange security for various branches of the Bank - The Respondent No. 3 accordingly made necessary arrangements and the Petitioner had made increase also in service charges of the gunmen by 15%. The Petitioner is said to have served a notice on the Respondent No. 3 through its new Chairman by which he proposed to terminate the services of gunmen with effect from 31 -1 -1988. The notice was replied but the Petitioner, Bank was adamant to terminate the services of gunmen from 1 -2 1988. The Petitioner 's action was challenged as being malafide and to harm the Respondent No. 3 and the Respondent No. 3 has claimed that he was to suffer an irreparable loss if the written instrument was cancelled. Therefore the petitioner was sought to be prevented to terminate the instrument by which the services of the gunmen were employed.
(3.) IN response to this writ petition the Respondent No. 3 has stated in his counter affidavit that there was an understanding with the Bank that the services of gunmen will be terminated only if these were found unsatisfactory. Notwithstanding Clause 13 of the instrument the services of the gunmen could not be terminated unless these were found to be unsatisfactory.;