Arb.A. 2/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the order dated 25.03.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 141/2010, registered under sect ion 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter for short referred to as the Act), rejecting the appellants’ prayer for restraining the respondents , their agents etc. from interfering with their business on the basis of the agr eement dated 24.02.2006 between the parties. I have heard Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. SK Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal are tha t, an agreement was entered into by the parties on 24.02.2006, permitting the ap pellants herein, inter alia, to collect parking fees from the vehicles as referr ed to therein subject to the terms and conditions as detailed in the contract. T hough, the initial term of the agreement was for 10 years w.e.f. 01.03.2006, in view of the intervening developments and the inconvenience as well as the diffic ulties expressed by the appellants, it was truncated to 5 years. This was follow ing a resolution taken by the respondent-Corporation to this effect. The amount of daily deposit to be made by the appellants was also reduced, the new rate bei ng effective on and from 16.07.2008. While the matter rested at that, according to the respondent-Corporation, in view of certain complaints received from its c ommuters and others about unwarranted congestion within its complex due to unaut horized parking of vehicles not within the ambit of the agreement, it issued a l etter dated 26.02.2010, requiring the appellants not to park any taxi with the A STC Paltanbazar station yard w.e.f. 01.03.2010, so as to facilitate smooth funct ioning of its affairs thereat. Being aggrieved, the appellants initially institu ted a suit, but later on having noticed an arbitration clause in the agreement, resorted to an application under section 9 of the Act, on which, the order impug ned has been passed. Whereas, Dr. Ahmed has urged that having regard to the terms and conditions of t he agreement, the restraint sought to be imposed by the respondent-Corporation v ide its letter dated 26.02.2010 is grossly opposed thereto and is unsustainable in law, Mr. Goswami, has argued that such an action was called for in view of ar bitrary and unauthorized departures made by the appellants from the terms and co nditions of the contract resulting in avoidable congestion within its complex ca using undue hardship and inconvenience to its commuters. Mr. Goswami has urged t hat as on date, the agreement has lost its force, it having expired on 23.02.201 1. This fact, however, is not denied by Dr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appel lants. On a perusal of the letter dated 26.02.2010 as well as the reasonings recorded b y the learned Court below, this Court is of the view that no interference, as pr ayed for, is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Additionally, as the agreement, on the basis of which the appellants’ cause of action for the instant appeal had arisen, has since spent its term on 23.02.2011, as on date, their claim, even otherwise, cannot be entertained in law In the above view of the matter, the appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.