IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.13570 of 2011 BETWEEN Wings Aviation Pvt. Ltd. ... PETITIONER AND The Assistant General Manager (LA), Airport Authority of India, Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet, Hyderabad and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. DAMMALAPATI SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR. CHALLA GUNARANJAN MR. E. MADAN MOHAN RAO The Court made the following order: ORDER: The Airport Authority of India (AAI), Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet, entered into a license agreement dated 07.09.2009 with the petitioner and granted license to the petitioner for using an extent of 390.33 sq. mts for the period from 15.10.1999 to 31.03.2008 and further renewal for a period of three years from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011 on various terms and conditions embodied in the agreement. 2. It appears that the said land and facility was utilized by the petitioner for flying activity and that the AAI found the petitioner to be due and payable amounts under arrears of rent for the period 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2011 for the aforesaid licensed area and certain other dues as per the license agreement. A dispute arose on account of non-payment of the said amount. Petitioner states that under his letter dated 06.04.2011 addressed to the Chairman, AAI, he pointed out that the efforts to resolve the dispute through the Chairman, earlier made, were not successful and as such, requested the appointment of any of the retired Honourable Judge of this Court as mentioned therein, as arbitrator for resolving the dispute and reliance therefor is placed on condition 20 of the agreement, which provides for resolution by way of arbitration. 3. Petitioner claims that the said request made by him was not even adverted to and a demand for recovery of arrears was reiterated by AAI under its letter dated 03.06.2011 and for non-payment of dues, the AAI has now approached the Eviction Officer under Section 28-G of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. The notice by the said authority under sub- section (4) of Section 28G was issued to the petitioner on 09.07.2010 whereupon the petitioner has approached this Court by the present writ petition on 29.04.2011 seeking a Mandamus declaring the said proceedings initiated by AAI before the second respondent (E.O.Case No.1 of 2010) as contrary to the license agreement dated 07.09.2009. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for AAI, who has filed a counter affidavit together with an application seeking vacation of the interim order. 5. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on condition 20 of the agreement, undoubtedly, provides for a mechanism for resolution of disputes by arbitration. However, certain disputes are excepted from the purview of the said mechanism. Petitioner has, undoubtedly, made a request for resolution of the dispute under the said condition vide his request dated 06.04.2011. The reply of the AAI dated 03.06.2011, however, does not deal with that part of the petitioner’s claim. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that there is no subsisting dispute as contended by the petitioner in view of the fact that the rates and levies, which were agreed to in the license agreement cannot now become the subject matter of a dispute before the arbitrator and as such, the petitioner’s claim for reduction of the levies as imposed in the agreement by invoking the condition of arbitration is not sustainable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that there is a subsisting dispute as to the entitlement of AAI in levying and recovering the amounts, as sought to be done by approaching the Eviction Officer and as such, the said dispute does fall under condition 20 of the license agreement. 8. Irrespective of the contentions of either party, it is evident that the license agreement did provide the requisite mechanism, which the parties have to invoke and as claimed by the petitioner, if his demand for appointment of the arbitrator is not being acceded to by the respondents, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides adequate remedy in such situation. Under the aforesaid Act the petitioner can also seek appropriate interim direction, if he satisfies the authority concerned that such measure is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The respondents, on the other hand, seek to recover the legitimate dues, which according to them, are payable by the petitioner and for recovery thereof, they have a right to approach the Eviction Officer under Section 28G of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. 9. In such event, therefore, the Mandamus as sought for by the petitioner cannot be issued inasmuch as it cannot be said that the Eviction Officer lacks inherent jurisdiction or is otherwise disabled under any agreement or law from discharging his duties as an Eviction Officer. The proceedings before the Eviction Officer are said to be only at the initial stage and as such, I deem it appropriate to decline the Mandamus as prayed for but at the same time leaving the petitioner’s liberty open to take such appropriate proceedings as advised either under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or otherwise for the ventilation of his grievance against the claim of the respondents. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 23, 2011 DSK