HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1785 of 2009 (M/S) Madhukar Sharma … Petitioner .. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 16th December, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that a contract which was executed between him and the District Tourism Development Officer, Haridwar on 28.3.2009, which was to continue till 31.12.2009 by which the petitioner was given right to run a parking area in Haridwar has been cancelled. The impugned order for cancellation is dated 9.9.2009 (annexure no. 5 to the writ petition). The reason assigned for cancellation of the said contract is that this area has to be used for upcoming “Maha Kumbha Mela” for the year 2010. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. Vide order dated 23.11.2009 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the State counsel was asked to seek instructions in the matter. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand Sri K.P. Upadhyay stated that he has received the instructions and it is not necessary for him to file counter affidavit and the records which are already there may be examined, as the overwhelming consideration of the State Government is that in the coming “Kumbha Mela” the said 2 parking area is urgently needed. Moreover, the order impugned has been passed consequent to a meeting dated 4.9.2009 in which the petitioner himself was a party and all this has been done after taking the petitioner in confidence and, therefore, the petitioner has no reason for challenging the impugned order. All the same, the fact of the matter is that there was a contract executed between the petitioner and the District Tourism Officer, Haridwar which is on record, certain rights have accrued with the petitioner. However, after examining the contents of this contract, which is annexure no. 2 to the writ petition, at clause 32 it is clear that in case of any dispute between the District Tourism Officer and the petitioner, the matter shall be referred for arbitration to the Chief Executive Officer, Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board or to any person nominated by him under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On this admitted position where there is an arbitration clause between the petitioner and respondent, it is not proper for this Court to interfere in this matter in the present writ petition. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the concerned authority under the arbitration clause and seek relief, if he so desires. With these observations, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 16.12.2009 Avneet