- (1.) INVOKING S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') the applicant seeks to appoint the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between applicant and non-applicants.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that non-applicant No. 1-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') published notice inviting tenders (for short 'NIT') in the newspapers for appointment of 'sole licensee' for carrying business of transportation of general household and commercial items, parcels, couriers for its 49 depots through its entire fleet of 4000 buses plying on State and Inter-State routes. Pursuant to the NIT the applicant submitted its tender on January 25, 2005 which was adjudicated as responsive and highest and RSRTC accepted the offer vide letter dated January 31, 2005. In compliance of the acceptance order the applicant deposited required advance monthly premium. Thereafter vide work order dated February 22, 2005 the applicant was appointed as Sole-Licensee for transport of couriers, parcels, household, commercial goods for the entire fleet of buses owned by RSRTC. As per terms and conditions of the NIT the applicant on February 26, 2005 obtained from the Canara Bank, Navlakha Branch, Indore a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 40,00,716/- representing advance payment of premium for six months for and on behalf of applicant and in favour of RSRTC and submitted the same to RSRTC. The grievance of the applicant is that RSRTC unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of NIT and appointment order to the prejudice of the applicant by putting pressure and coercion on him to sign agreement showing condition Nos. 29 and 30 preventing the applicant from transportation of post/dak parcels of the Post and Telegraph Department and the State Government as well as stationery of RSRTC through buses and exclusively vest the same with RSRTC. The RSRTC also prevented the applicant from transportation of couriers, parcels, commercial or household goods through Suvidha Vahan. With a view to irreparably prejudice the interest of the applicant the RSRTC sent a format of agreement depriving the applicant of his legal legitimate right to provide his services as sole licensee to every one transportation of post/dak of Post and Telegraph Department and State Government exclusive of Suvidha Vahan (buses) for transportation of couriers, household and commercial goods, parcels etc. The applicant had no option but to sign the agreement on March 28, 2005 with the remarks that condition Nos. 29 and 30 are not acceptable to him. Vide order dated April 1, 2005 the RSRTC informed the applicant that the administration of RSRTC is not agreeable on deletion of condition Nos. 29 and 30 and directed the applicant to sign and execute the agreement in the earlier format once again. Thereafter without affording any opportunity of hearing the RSRTC vide order dated April 16, 2005 cancelled work order under purported exercise of power provided in Cl. 4 of the NIT. The applicant thereafter on May 3, 2005 made a request to RSRTC for appointment of an independent and impartial Arbitrator. Since the Chairman of the RSRTC had no competence to act as an arbitrator, the applicant had suggested names for appointment of the sole arbitrator. The RSRTC, however, vide letter dated May 24, 2005 informed the applicant that as per Cl. 29 of the tender document only the Chairman of RSRTC could be the sole arbitrator. In these circumstances, the application seeking appointment of sole arbitrator has been filed by the applicant.
(3.) IN preliminary objections raised on behalf of RSRTC it is contended that the application seeking appointment of arbitrator is not maintainable because contract between the applicant-firm and RSRTC has not yet been concluded and no dispute can be alleged by the applicant in regard to the agreement. It is pleaded that one typed agreement was submitted by the applicant to RSRTC containing as many as 32 terms and conditions. One Sanjay Somani put his signatures on the agreement on March 28, 2005 and the same was signed by CMD, RSRTC on March, 29, 2005. Later on some hand written lines were forgedly inserted by the applicant mentioning therein that condition Nos. 29 and 30 were not acceptable. That made the agreement invalid and, therefore, the applicant was asked to submit fresh agreement vide letter dated April 1, 2005. Since fresh agreement was not executed the RSRTC under the compelling circumstances cancelled the work dated February 22, 2005. It is alternatively averred by the RSRTC that even as per Cl. 29 of the terms and conditions of the NIT and Cl. No. 28 of the draft agreement only the Chairman of RSRTC could be the arbitrator.;