- (1.) HEARD Sri J.S. Pandey, learned Advocate in support of this appeal and Sri Mithilesh Chandra Tripathi, learned Advocate who appears for the Union of India.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned District Judge, Agra dated 29.2.2008 by which application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been rejected. There is no dispute about the facts which are as under :- The respondents issued an auction notice dated 19.5.2006 for awarding a contract for collection of parking fee at Amar Singh Gate, Agra Fort, Agra for the year 2006-07. The auction took place on 29.5.2006. In the auction appellant was the highest bidder at Rs. 14 Lacs. Therefore, under the terms and conditions of the auction he was directed to deposit 50% of the auction amount and furnish security to the tune of 20% of the auction amount. The tender notice in clause (v) specifically provided that the Principle Director, Defence Estate, Central Command, Lucknow is the final authority to accept or reject the bid without assigning any reason whatsoever. The bid of the appellant was rejected and a fresh auction was conducted on 17.7.2005 in which the bid of respondent No.4 was accepted and he was granted the contract.
(3.) IN the above factual background, the appellant applied to the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short hereinafter an Act) for interim protection that the respondents be restrained from settling the contract with any third party and that the contract be settled only in favour of the appellant. The Court below in refusing the interim protection by the impugned order clearly held that the bid of the appellant was never accepted as per terms of the auction notice and, therefore, he has no vested right to claim that the contract be settled with him alone. The appellant has participated the subsequent auction impliedly agreeing to the order of rejection of his earlier bid. We do not find any fault with the reasoning so given in rejecting the application of the appellant by the Court below.;