- (1.) It appears that under an Agreement dated 27.8.2010 entered into between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, the petitioner was to provide a Mini-Bus to the respondent No. 2 on the terms and conditions, as mentioned in the said Agreement. By the order dated 16.1.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2, the said Agreement has been terminated and the security money of Rs. 10,000 deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited. The petitioner has thereupon, filed the present writ petition before this Court, inter alia, praying that said order dated 16.1.2013 be quashed.
(2.) We have heard Shri S.C. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava holding brief for Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.) Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava holding brief for Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that under Clause 34 of the Agreement it is open to the petitioner to take proceedings for arbitration in regard to the alleged dispute. Clause 34 is as under: 34. Anubandh men prayukt kisi shabd abhivyakti shart ya upbandh ke arth nirvachan ya ardhanwayan ke sambandh se kisi paksh ke adhikaron ya dayitvon ke sambandh men ya patrkaron ke madhya kisi bhugtan ke sambandh men ya anya kisi prakar ke mamle men koi vivad sanshay matbhed utpann hone par uttar pradesh rajya sambhagiya parivahan nigam ke kisi adhikari ko aik matra madhyasthta (arbitration) hetu aisa visay sandarbhit kiya jayega aur aise madhyasth ka nirnay/anirnay (award) pakshkaron ke bich antim nivaran awam badhyakari hoga, Aise sabhi sandarbhon men Arbitration Act 1996 ke pravidhan avam uske antargat nirmit niyam nistaran hetu lagu honge. Iske sakshya swarup pakshkaron ne aaj dinank 27.8.10 ko vilekh ko hastakshrit avam nispadit kiya.;