^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon' ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon' ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Petitioner Writ Petition (Cl No. 7306 of 2009 M/s. Dhawangale Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur (Maharashtra) through Authorized Signatory Kishore L. Warshe, aged about 41 years, S/o. Laxman Rao Warshe, R/o. Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspjr (CG). Vs. Respondent Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, through its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (CG). (Writ Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India) Present: Shri Ravindra Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashutosh Kachwaha, counsel for the respondent. Oral Order (Passed on this 17th day of February, 2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition and prayed for following reliefs. 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders whereby quashing the impugned agreement termination intimation dated 19-11-2009 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate wriVwrits, direction/directions, order/orders in the nature of mandamus, whereby the respondent be directed to allow the petitioner to work as per the agreement dated 3-9-2007. 10.3 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Cost of the petition. ^•) 2) The grievanceof the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondenVCorporation on 3-9-2007 (Annexure P/2) for maintenance work of street-lights in Bilaspur city for the period of five years from the date of agreement and thus the agreement is valid till 2/9/2012. However, the respondent/Corporation has terminated the agreement by order dated 19-11-2009 (Annexure P/1) on the basis of resolution ofthe Mayor-in-council dated 17-11-2009 and the resolution of General Body dated 19-11-2009. The agreement has been terminated without issuing any show cause notice as contemplated in Clause 29 of the agreement and as such the same is illegal as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before terminating the agreement. 3) In reply to the writ petition, it has been averred by the respondent/Corporation that the maintenance work of street lights undertaken bythe petitioner was unsatisfactory through out the period and the petitioner was served with number of notices by the Corporation, however, there was no improvement in working of the petitioner. Finally, a notice under Clause 29 of the agreement was given to the petitioner on 26-8-2009 vide Annexure R/17 calling upon to show cause as to why the agreement should not be terminated under Clause 29 of the agreement and only thereafter, the agreement was terminated as per conditions ofthe agreement. It has been further averred that as per arbitration clause 25 of the agreement any dispute arising out of the agreement between the parties is to be referred to the Sole Arbitrator and whose decision shall be final andbinding upon the parties. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the fact that the agreement has been terminated way back on 19-11-2009 and \r?% also considering that there is an arbitration clause which specifically provides that any dispute arising out of the agreement between the parties is to be amicably settled through the Sole Arbitrator whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties, we are of the opinion that the instant petition is not maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner. 5) In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Raju Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge