1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07/12/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition (MD) Nos.13859 AND 13860 of 2011 K.Ramesh ...Petitioner in both W.Ps. Vs 1.The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi 2.The Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Airports Authority of India, Operational Offices Building, Chennai Airport, Chennai. 3.The General Manager (Engineering) Airports Authority of India, Operational Offices Building, Chennai Airport, Chennai. 4.The Airport Director Airports Authority of India, Madurai Airport, Madurai. 5. The Assistant General Manager Engineering (Civil) Airports Authority of India, Madurai-22 ...Respondents in both WPs Prayer in W.P.No.13859/2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in AAI/MDU/AGME (C)/W 27/2009/5580 dated 13.06.2011 on the file of the respondent No.5 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to make the pending payment as per the communication dated 18.02.2011 by the respondent No.5 and allow the petitioner to complete the contract works in the revised rate within a reasonable time stipulated by this Court. Prayer in W.P.No.13860/2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned tender notification in Daily Thanthi dated 26.11.2011 by the respondent No.5 and quash the same as illegal. For petitioner ... Mr.S.Rajasekar for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents ... No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petitions, challenging (1) the termination of a contract for the construction of a peripheral road and (2) a tender notification issued for the award of the same contract, invoking the risk and cost clause. 2. Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that under the general conditions of the contract between the petitioner and the respondents, any dispute between the parties has to be referred to arbitration. 4. Article 4.1 of the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the respondent reads as follows: “ARTICLE 4.1 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES: It is specifically agreed by and between the parties that all the difference or disputes arising out of agreement or touching the subject matter of the agreement shall be decided by the process of settlement and arbitration as specified in clause 57 of the statutory modification or re- enactment thereof and made there under and for the time being in force shall apply and Delhi Court alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the same.” Therefore, the appropriate remedy open to the petitioner is only to invoke the arbitration clause. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner seeking arbitration, the respondents have not referred the dispute to arbitration. If it is so, the petitioner ought to have filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 5. Even in respect of the fresh tender floated by the respondents, the petitioner is not remedyless. He can move the appropriate District Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for appropriate interim protective measures, even pending the initiation of arbitration proceedings. Since Section 9 is a remedy available, pre-arbitration, during the pendency of arbitration and also post arbitration, the right course of action open to the petitioner is to move the District Court immediately. 6. Therefore, with the above liberty, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi 2.The Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Airports Authority of India, Operational Offices Building, Chennai Airport, Chennai. 3.The General Manager (Engineering) Airports Authority of India, Operational Offices Building, Chennai Airport, Chennai. 4.The Airport Director Airports Authority of India, Madurai Airport, Madurai. 5. The Assistant General Manager Engineering (Civil) Airports Authority of India, Madurai-625 002 Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +2cc's to Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, Advocate, SR.Nos.42808, 42809 RR GH : 12.12.2011 : 3p/9c W.P.(MD) Nos.13859 and 13860 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,1 and 2,2 of 2011 07.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/