M.Selvaraj v. The Secretary Ministry of Petroleum, Oil and Natural Gas Government of India, New Delhi & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.3.2009CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.21690 of 2007M.Selvaraj ..PetitionerVs.1. The Secretary Ministry of Petroleum, Oil and Natural Gas Government of India, New Delhi.2. The Divisional Manager Indian Oil Corporation (IBP Division) 10, Mayor V.R.Ramanathan Road Chetput, Chennai-600 031. 3. S.Devathathan ..Respondents (3rd respondent impleaded by order dated 30.3.2009 made in M.P.No.1 of 2008)PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the recordsrelating to Ref.CH3/10, IBP Division dated 05.06.2007 on the file ofthe 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents torenew the maintenance and Handling contract for the operation of COCOat Attur.For Petitioner:Mr.S.DoraisamyFor Respondents:Mr.V.Ananthanatarajanfor 2nd respondent Mr.M.L.Rameshfor 3rd respondent ORDERThe writ petition is directed against the order of the secondrespondent dated 5.6.2007, by which the second respondent, by givingone month's time with effect from 5.6.2007, has terminated theMaintenance and Handling contract awarded to the petitioner at No.40,Salem Main Road Attur-636 102, Salem District, as per Clause 48 ofthe contract dated 20.12.2003. It is also stated under the impugnedorder that the contract stands terminated with effect from 4.7.2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. In the letter of the petitioner dated 21.5.2007, thepetitioner in uncertain terms has admitted that the contract awardedto him would be expired on 30.6.2007. However, his only requestunder the said letter dated 21.5.2007 is for extension of contractperiod for another year. Admittedly, the period of contract has notbeen extended and in a writ petition challenging the order oftermination of contract dated 5.6.2007, this Court cannot grant adirection to the second respondent to extend the period of contract. 3. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerwould submit that as per Clause 48 of the contract entered intobetween the parties, which is as follows:"Clause 48 – Existing provision under this clause shallbe replaced by the following:-"This Agreement will be valid for a period of one yeareffective from 01.10.2005, with automatic renewal forone more year. However, in the event that the Companywishes to appoint a Dealer in respect of the concernedRetail Outlet, the Company shall notify the Contractoraccordingly and this Agreement will be terminatedimmediately upon receipt of the notification, asaforesaid, by the Contractor. Without prejudice to theaforesaid, this Agreement may be terminated at theoption of either party by giving at least one monthsnotice in writing to the other party, without assigningany reason whatsoever. In case of breach of thisAgreement, the Company reserves the right to terminatethis Agreement forthwith. Unless otherwise mentioned orrenewed in writing this Agreement stands automaticallyterminated at the end of the agreement period. If anyinformation given by the M&H Contractor in hisapplication for appointment shall be found to be untrueor incorrect, in material respect, the Company reservesthe right to terminate this Agreement forthwith.", while it is true that the second respondent/Corporation has a rightto terminate the existing contractors and appoint any other person,such appointment shall be made only by way of a notification. In thepresent case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, nosuch notification has been issued, even though it is the case of thelearned counsel for the second respondent/Corporation that suchnotification was issued in the year 2004 and the third respondent wasappointed in the place of the petitioner. On fact, it may not becorrect that such notification, which is stated to have been issuedin the year 2004, a copy of which has not been produced before thisCourt, can have binding effect on the contract with the petitioner,which is of the year 2003 and is in subsistence till 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned counsel appearing for the secondrespondent/Corporation would submit that the agreement of contractcontains an arbitration clause for settlement of disputes between theparties. Clause 51 of the contract, by which the petitioner came tobe appointed for rendering certain services in the retail outlets, isas follows:"51. Any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoeveror regarding any right, liability, act, omission onaccount of any of the parties hereto arising out of orin relation to this Agreement or any interpretation ofany clause or provision hereof shall be referred to thesole arbitration of the Head of the Region, of theCompany, or of some officer of the Company who may benominated by the Head of the region. The M & HContractor will not be entitled to raise any objectionto any such arbitrator on the ground that the arbitratoris an officer of the Company. In the event thearbitrator the matter is originally referred to istransferred or vacates his office or is unable to actfor any reason the Head of the Region as aforesaid atthe time of such transfer, vacating of office orinability to act, shall designate another person to actas an arbitrator in accordance with the terms of theAgreement. Such person shall be entitled to proceedwith the reference from the point at which it was leftby his predecessor. It is also a term of this Agreementthat no person other than the Head of the Region or aperson nominated by him/her shall act as sole arbitratorhereunder. The award of the arbitrator so appointedshall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties tothe Agreement, subject to the provisions of theArbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules madethereunder or any statutory modification or re-enactmentthereof and for the time being in force.", provides for appointment of Arbitrator of his choice by Director(Marketing) of the second respondent/Corporation, and the awardpassed by him becomes final.5. In view of the clause for arbitration, which is available inthe contract, it is not possible for this Court to accept thecontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that thepetitioner's term of contract should be directed to be extended forthe reason that already interim order has been granted while noticeof motion was ordered in this case, by which the petitioner continuesto render services.6. Under these circumstances, the writ petition stands disposedof with a direction to the Director (Marketing) of the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent/Corporation to take necessary steps to appoint anArbitrator as per clause 51 of the Contract. Such appointment ofArbitrator shall be completed by the Director (Marketing) withinthree weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Onsuch appointment of Arbitrator, as submitted by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner, the petitioner would co-operate fullywith the arbitration and the Arbitrator shall complete theproceedings, after giving opportunity to the parties, including thethird respondent herein, and pass the award, expeditiously, in anyevent within a period of eight weeks therefrom. 7. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner wouldsubmit that the petitioner has invested huge amount for the purposeof rendering his services as per the terms of the contract and he hasto remove various materials belonging to him from the place ofcontract. Since it is admitted that by virtue of interim order thepetitioner is continuing the contract and he requires some time forthe purpose of removal of various materials, subject to thecondition, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner,that the petitioner shall remove all materials belonging to him,which are in the place of contract, the petitioner is permitted toremove the said materials within three weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order and during the said period of three weeks,the respondents shall not interfere. It is made clear that withinthe said period of three weeks, the petitioner shall hand over thekey to the second respondent.In the result, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 and 1 of 2008 are closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsasiTo1. The Secretary Ministry of Petroleum, Oil and Natural Gas Government of India New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Divisional Manager Indian Oil Corporation (IBP Division) 10, Mayor V.R.Ramanathan Road Chetput, Chennai-600 031.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. V. Anantha Natarajan, Advocate. S.R.No.10955.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. S. Doraisamy, Advocate. S.R.No.10576.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. L. Ramesh, Advocate. S.R.No.10553.W.P.No.21690 of 2007BS (CO)GSK 13.04.2009.