The Municipal Corporation of Delhi .... Respondent Through Mr.Amit K. Paul, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. * 1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Arbitration agreement between the parties. 2. The petitioner is stated to be engaged in outdoor publicity/ advertisement, display of hoardings and kiosks etc. The respondent had issued a NTI dated 27th January, 2006 for award of contract for display of illuminated advertisements through kiosks on streetlight poles on MCD roads. The bid of the petitioner was accepted for a period of two years and the petitioner also deposited Rs.2.00 lakh per zone as earnest money. A.A. No.196/2008 Page 1 of 8 3. According to the petitioner, respondent had made a very specific and categorical representation that the bidder will get a right to display illuminated advertisement through kiosks on streetlight poles on all the MCD roads including PWD maintained roads. The respondent, according to the petitioner, had also promised to ensure power supply for such illumination and it was on the basis of these representations of the respondent that the bid was made by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has made a grievance that the letter of allotment issued by the respondent is contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender document and the representations made by the respondent. The letters of allotment excluded the PWD roads from the purview of contract. It is contended that till date no arrangement has been made for illuminated display of advertisements. The assertion of the plaintiff is also that BSES is the agency which supplies electricity, however, respondent has not entered into any agreement with BSES for supply of electricity in order to provide facility of illumination of advertisement on kiosks for display. Since the electricity has not been provided, the petitioner has asserted that the respondent is not entitled for the security deposit and monthly license fee. According to the petitioner, there are also disputes between the respondent and PWD regarding revenue sharing. The plea of the petitioner is also that in absence of illumination, the duration of display is almost reduced by 50% and consequently the revenue generation gets reduced by 50% and in the A.A. No.196/2008 Page 2 of 8 circumstances the respondent is not entitled for the amounts claimed by him. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that he had deposited Rs.2.00 lakh per zone, however, he has been called upon to deposit Rs.60,48,400/ on 17th April, 2006 which is approximately equal to four months' license fee for the two zones without the respondent fulfilling its promise/representation. The petitioner is alleged to have deposited Rs.52,45,300/ with the respondent and has demanded that the respondent reduce the amount on account of nonperformance of the terms of agreement. However, by letter dated 24th May, 2006, the respondent has refused to reduce the monthly license fee. The respondent is also alleged to have issued a show cause notice dated 7th June, 2006 to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner is stated to had filed a petition being OMP No.279/2006 under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. During the pendency of the petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the respondent has terminated the contract unilaterally. The petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has however been disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps by order dated 2nd February, 2007. A.A. No.196/2008 Page 3 of 8 7. The petitioner has contended that the respondent is demanding the arrears of license fee without taking into consideration the amounts which the respondent is liable to pay on account of breaches committed by the respondent. The respondent is also demanding interest which according to the petitioner,