Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
M/S SOUTH DELHI DISTRIBUTORS ..... Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Richa Kapoor and Mr A.K. Hosle, Advocates
For the Respondents : Ms Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel with Ms Sana Ansari, Advocate
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. This writ petition is directed against the notice inviting tender for running a chemist shop at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi-
110095. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner has been running the shop, which has been made the subject of the tender, under a licence from 2008 to 2011 which was extended for a further period of three years upto 11.03.2014 and under the said licence agreement, the petitioner is entitled to a final extension of three years from 2014 to 2017. It is further 2014:DHC:3247-DB the case of the petitioner that despite the fact that the petitioner is running a chemist shop at the said hospital and licence fee is being paid in terms of the original licence, extended from time to time, without there being any termination of the licence, the respondents have issued notice inviting tender for running the very chemist shop which the petitioner is running. This, according to the petitioner, is not at all permissible in law.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the licence of the petitioner stands terminated by efflux of time. However, no specific notice terminating the licence of the petitioner has been given in terms of clause 31 of the licence agreement dated 20.02.2008. Our attention was also drawn to clause 26 of the said licence agreement which clearly stipulates as under:-
3. While hearing arguments from the counsel for the parties our attention was also drawn to clause 33 of the said licence agreement which reads as under:-
4. In terms of the said clause, it is evident that the disputes and differences arising between the parties concerning the licence agreement have to be referred to Arbitration. Both the parties are willing to go in for arbitration to sort out the disputes and differences between them. We are of the view that unless and until the arbitration is concluded and a decision is taken by the Arbitral Tribunal, there can be no progress in the notice inviting tender. Both the parties agree that the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi may nominate the Arbitrator within two weeks. We also hope that the arbitration proceedings are concluded within two months thereafter.
5. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. However, we make it clear that the notice inviting tender shall not be proceeded with till the expiry of 15 days from the date of communication of the award to the parties by the Arbitrator. Both the parties are at liberty to approach this Court in case the grievance still survives. We also make it clear that we have not expressed our view on the merits of the dispute between the parties. Dasti under the signature of Court Master to counsel for both the parties.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 14, 2014 dn