HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT- NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 195(M/B) 2004 Naushe Khan S/o Abdul Karim Khan, R/o Alipur Chaupla Gajraula, Distt. J.P. Nagar, (U.P.). … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttaranchal through Its Secretary Road Transport, Dehradun, Uttaranchal and three others. … Respondents. Dated: March 5, 2004: Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri. Gopal K. Verma, Ad. for the petitioner, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Ashish Joshi, Ad. for respondent nos. 2 to 4. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayer for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to continue with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 21.07.2000 signed by the erstwhile State of U.P., the respondents nos. 3&4 till 20.07.2005. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is the owner of a restaurant, namely Mela restaurant, situated at Delhi-Moradabad Highway at Gajraula, Distt. J.P. Nagar, U.P. On 15.07.2000, the respondent no. 4 took a decision to authorise the petitioner’s restaurant to serve the passengers who used to travel by the buses of respondent no. 3 & 4. As per terms and condition of the contract the buses of the respondent will stop at restaurant of the petitioner and for each bus, the petitioner shall pay Rs. 10/- to the conductor of the bus and provide facilities to the bus staff and provide cheaper food to the passengers of the bus. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 21.07.2000 the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 on behalf of respondent no. 4 signed the contract and as per the terms and conditions the petitioner is providing regularly all facilities to the bus staff as well as of the passengers of the buses of the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the Ministry of Transport & Highways has issued a notification no. S.O. 1233 (F) dated 27.10.2003 for creation of Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation; the staff of the buses of the respondent corporation has started purposely neglecting to stop the buses at the proposed venue i.e. the restaurant of the petitioner, which is in gross violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement signed by the parties. Petitioner has prayed that a direction be issued to respondent no. 2 to issue directions to their drivers to stop the buses at the restaurant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 21.07.2000 signed between the State of U.P. and the petitioner and to continue till the 5 years over. Counsel for the petitioner has referred the agreement dated 21st July 2000 entered between the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, called as the first party and Naushe Khan S/o Abdul Karim Khan, R/o Allipur, Chaupla, Gajraula, District Jyotibafule Nagar called as the second party. The terms and conditions which are relevant are quoted below:- “izFke i{k dh izfrfnu :dus okyh clksa dk ,d jftLVj Hkh j[kk tk;sxk] ftl ij izfrfnu pkyd@ifjpkyd ds gLRkk{kj f}rh; i{k djk;sxkA f}rh; i{k dks jksdus okyh izR;sd cl ds ifjpkyd dks fu/kkZfjr /kujkf”k :i;s 10@& izfr cl Bgjko nsuh gksxh] ftldh jlhn ifjpkyd Hkkj iqfLrdk ls miyC/k djk;saxs rFkk ftldh ewy izfr ij f}rh; i{k dks gLrk{kj djuk gksxk f}rh; i{k <kcs esa izFke i{k ds cl ds pkyd@ifjpkyd dks fu%”kqYd Hkkstu@tyiku miyC/k djk;sxk rFkk pkyd@ifjpkyd ;fn mDr <kcs ls ih0lh0vks0@QSDl dk iz;ksx vius dk;Z gsrq djrs gSa rks bl lqfo/kk dks Hkh fu%”kqYd miyC/k djk;k tk;sxk] ;g VsyhQksu cl ds pkyd@ifjpkyd cl LVs”u@fuxe ds fHkUu uEcjksa ij dj ldrk gSA ftldh ,d lwph izR;sd <kcs ekfyd dks miyC/k djk;h tk;sxhA f}rh; i{k }kjk fd;s x;s vuqca/k dh ,d izfr <kcs ij iznf”kZr djsxk] fujh{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa dks miyC/k jgsA vuqca/k esa iz;qDr fdlh 'kCn vfHkO;fDr 'krksZa ;k mica/k ds vFkZ fuoZpu ;k v/kkZUo;u ds lEcU/k esa fdlh i{k ds vf/kdkjksa ;k nkf;R;ksa ds laca/k esa ;k vU; fdlh izdkj ds ekeys esa dksbZ fookn la’k; ;k erHksn mRiUu gksus ij] m0iz0 jkT; lM+d ifjogu fuxe ds izcU/k funs”kd ;k mlds }kjk ukfer m0iz0 jkT; ifjogu fuxe ds fdlh vf/kdkjh dks ,dek= e/;LFk gsrq ,slk fo"k; lanfHkZr fd;k tk;sxk vkSj ,sls e/;LFk dk fu.kZ;@vf/kfu.kZ; i=dkjksa ds chp vafre] fu.kkZ;d ,oa ck/;dkjh gksxkA ,sls lHkh lanHkksa esa vkjfodVªs”ku ,DV 1946 ds izkfo/kku ,oa mlds varxZr fufeZr fu;e fuLrkj.k gsrq ykxw gksaxsaA” As well appear from paragraph 22 of the agreement that since there is an arbitrator clause, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Arbitrator. Since alternative remedy is already available to the petitioner in the agreement dated 21st July 2000, no interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned as mentioned in the notification dated 27th October 2003 issued by the Ministry of Transport and Highways for availing of the alternative remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon J.) (M.M. Ghildiyal J.) March 5,2004: NCM: