IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQ. CASE No.16 of 2010 POONAM MISHRA, W/O D.N. MISHRA, PROP: M/S PISCES MEDIA WORLD, 202, VIJAY APARTMENT, KANKARBAGH, PATNA-20…………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND PUBLICATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR. 3. THE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, PARIBAHAN BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. CHIEF OF OPERATOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIWAHAN BHAWAN, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA…………………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, Advocate. For the Corporation : M/s P.K. Verma, Nand Kr. Singh and Arvind Kumar, Advocates. For the State : AC to AAG-4 ----------- 06/ 06.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This request case has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve, settle and decide the disputes and differences which have been arisen between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of agreement dated 06.02.2008 executed by Chief of Operator on behalf of Road Transport Corporation and the petitioner through her authorized representative Mr. D.N. Mishra. 3. There is no dispute that there was an agreement between the parties dated 06.02.2008 (Annexure-1) for display of advertisement through panel painting on road worthy buses of the respondent Corporation. It transpires that subsequently a - 2 - dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.12489 of 2009 which was dismissed by a Bench of this court vide order dated 06.10.2009 after arriving at the following findings: “Learned counsel for the petitioner further challenged the impugned order on the ground of malafide as according to him even prior to issue of the impugned order dated 7.9.2009 cancelling the agreement with the petitioner for fixing side (advertisement) panels the corporation proceeded to issue fresh advertisement for empanelment of advertising/media communication agencies which is dated 6.9.2009 and is contained in Annexure-12 to this application and thereby the Corporation made it clear to all concerned that it was determined to cancel the agreement of the petitioner. Aforesaid submission of the petitioner also does not have any merit as if the petitioner was aggrieved with the advertisement he should have challenged the same. In any case, petitioner having not paid the license fee in spite of demand made under letter dated 4.2.2009 and 18.5.2009, the authorities of the Corporation were aware about his conduct and if they proceeded to issue tender notice for empanelment of advertising/media communication agencies in the opinion of this Court nothing wrong was committed by the authorities.” 4. Against the aforesaid order of this court the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No.1599 of 2009 but the said Appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2010 - 3 - (Annexure-7) by a division bench of this court with the observation that although this case is not a fit matter for exercise of writ jurisdiction, but as admittedly there is an Arbitration Clause in the contract, the petitioner if aggrieved by the action of the Corporation, will be at liberty to invoke the Arbitration Clause or to claim compensation in appropriate proceeding before the Civil Court in accordance with law. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not raise any claim of compensation in an appropriate proceeding before the Civil Court, but she filed an application before the Administrator/M.D. of the Corporation on 23.07.2010 (Annexure-8) invoking the said Arbitration Clause and requesting to appoint one or more Arbitrator as per Clause-24 of the Arbitration Agreement so that dispute may be settled and the details of claim may be filed before the Arbitrator. It transpires that thereafter the said authority did not pass any order and this request case was filed by the petitioner on 29.09.2010. 6. Now learned counsel for the respondents has produced letter dated 28.03.2011 sent to the petitioner by the Controller, Stores & Purchase, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation holding that in light of the directives of Hon‟ble High Court, M/s Pisces Media World may place their case before Arbitrator under clause 24 (a) of the agreement within a week of the date of issue of that letter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises - 4 - objections that since the respondents did not appoint any Arbitrator within the time frame due to which petitioner had to file a request case, respondents cannot be allowed to appoint Arbitrator during the pendency of this request case and this court must appoint an independent Arbitrator in the matter. He further submits that it was the Administrator/M.D. of the Corporation who had taken action against the petitioner and hence appointment of the same person as Arbitrator would definitely jeopardize her claims. 8. So far the first claim of the petitioner is concerned, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had raised her specific claims before this court in C.W.J.C. No.12489 of 2009 and this court vide its order dated 06.10.2009 rejected her claims and dismissed the writ petition. Furthermore, the Division Bench of this court affirmed the said order of the Single Judge vide order dated 28.06.2010 passed in L.P.A. No.1599 of 2009 only with the observation that the petitioner will be at liberty to invoke the Arbitration Clause or to claim compensation in appropriate proceeding before the Civil Court in accordance with law. 9. Arbitration Clause 24 of the admitted agreement dated 06.02.2008 (Annexure-1) reads as follows: (a) All questions and disputes between the parties, the settlement of which has not been herein specifically provided shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator who is agreed to be the Administrator/MD, B.S.R.T.C. - 5 - (b) Notwithstanding institutions of any proceeding either before The Administrator/MD or any court of law or otherwise, liability of the Sole Agent for payment of licence fee mentioned above shall continue for the full term of the contract period as herein before stipulated. 10. The Division Bench of this court had given liberty to the petitioner to invoke the Arbitration Clause of the agreement and the Arbitration Clause requires reference of the dispute to the sole Arbitrator who was agreed to be the Administrator/M.D. of the Corporation, hence in these circumstances, Administrator/M.D. of the Corporation was to be appointed as Arbitrator and the same has been done by the authorities. Hence, the said act of the authorities cannot be held to be illegal. 11. So far the second objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner had herself filed application dated 23.07.2010 (Annexure-8) before the Administrator/M.D. of the Corporation for appointment of Arbitrator as per Arbitration Clause 24 of the agreement which requires appointment of Administrator/M.D. of the Corporation as Arbitrator. Hence, now at this stage the petitioner cannot be legally allowed to take „U‟ turn and say that Administrator/M.D. of the Corporation cannot properly arbitrate between the parties with respect to the claim raised by the petitioner especially when the claim of the petitioner had already been considered by this court in the writ case as well as in the Letters Patent Appeal and the work of the Arbitrator is - 6 - now limited only to settle the dispute between the parties by amicable means. 12. In the said circumstances, the respondents have justifiably appointed the sole Arbitrator in view of the Arbitration Clause of the agreement as well as according to the specific directions of this court and the request of the petitioner in her application dated 23.07.2010 (Annexure-8) and hence the grievance of the petitioner is already redressed. Hence this court does not find any reason or justification for appointment of another Arbitrator. Accordingly this request case is dismissed. 13. However, since the matter is pending since long, both the parties are directed to approach the said Arbitrator within four weeks from today along with a copy of this order as well as the details of claims of the respective parties. The said Arbitrator shall expedite the arbitral proceeding and shall decide the same expeditiously without any undue delay. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)