SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(J&K) 372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
Hotel Golden Tulip Kashmir & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
UT of J&K & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 886 of 2021
Decided On : 13-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.A. Makroo; B.A. Wani.
For the Respondent: Usman Gani.

The court highlighted the importance of allowing the petitioners to pursue the compensation dispute and ensuring their request for an arbitrator is not rejected based on limitation.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Rental Compensation - Disaster Management Act, 2005, Section 65 & 66

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, three Hoteliers, sought a direction to appoint an Arbitrator for determining fair rental compensation for the use of their hotels, which were requisitioned by the District Disaster Management Authority for accommodating medical staff of designated COVID-19 hospitals. The petitioners contested the fixed rental rates as unfair and below market rates, and applied for Arbitration, which was not decided within the stipulated 30 days.

Finding of the Court:

The court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioners to take up the dispute regarding compensation determination with the competent authority within four weeks. It also ruled that the petitioners' request for appointment of an arbitrator should not be rejected on the ground of limitation, as they were not associated in the determination process.

Issues: Unfair rental compensation determination, delay in appointing an Arbitrator, rejection of request based on limitation

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the petitioners to pursue the compensation dispute with the competent authority and ruled that their request for an arbitrator should not be rejected due to the lack of association in the determination process.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, with directions for the petitioners to pursue the compensation dispute and ensuring their request for an arbitrator is not rejected based on limitation.

JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, petition is admitted and taken for final consideration.

2. This is a petition by three Hoteliers seeking inter alia a direction to the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator for determination of just and fair rental compensation for the use and occupation of their Hotels. It is submitted that Hotels of the petitioners situated in the District of Srinagar were taken over by the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority (District Magistrate Srinagar) for accommodating Medical Staff of various designated COVID-19 Hospitals, purportedly in the exercise of powers conferred upon the District Authority, under section 65 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 ("the Act of 2005").

3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the District Authority/District Magistrate without associating them in the process, unilaterally determined the rentals per room and the rate of lodging. Reference in this regard is invited to the order of the District Authority/District Magistrate bearing No. DCS/Nar-SDRF(2022) 21/524-27, dated 06.02.2021, whereby the District Authority/District Magistrate has fixed Rs. 365/- as room rent per day and Rs. 250/- per day for lodging. The petitioners submit that the rates fixed both for boarding and lodging are unfair and far less than the market rates and therefore, they have not accepted the same. It is pleaded by the petitioners that with a view to get their grievance redressed, the petitioners through their counsel applied to the District Authority/District Magistrate to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Proviso to Section 66 of the Act 2005, but no decision thereon has been taken, and this has constrained the petitioners to jointly file this petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record, it is necessary to set out Section 65 & 66 of the Act, 2005. For facility of reference it is reproduced as under:-

    65. Power of requisition of resources, provisions, vehicles, etc., for rescue operations, etc.-34

(1) If it appears to the National Executive Committee, State Executive Committee or District Authority or any officer as may be authorized by it in this behalf that-

(a) Any resources with any authority or person are needed for the purpose of prompt response;

(b) Any premises are needed or likely to be needed for the purpose of rescue operations; or

(c) Any vehicle is needed or is likely to be needed for the purposes of transport of resources from disaster affected areas or transport of resources to the affected area or transport in connection with rescue, rehabilitation or reconstruction, such authority may, by order in writing, requisition such resources or premises or such vehicle, as the case may be, and may make such further orders as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning.

(2) Whenever any resource, premises or vehicle is requisitioned under sub-section (1), the period of such requisition shall not extend beyond the period for which such resource, premises or vehicle is required for any of the purposes mentioned in that sub-section.

(3) In this section,-

(a) "Resources" includes men and material resources;

(b) "Services" includes facilities;

(c) "Premises" means any land, building or part of a building and includes a hut, shed or other structure or any part thereof;

(d) "Vehicle" means any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise.

66. Payment of compensation.-

(1) Whenever any Committee, Authority or officer referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 65, in pursuance of that section requisitions any premises, there shall be paid to the persons interested compensation the amount of which shall be determined by taking into consideration the following, namely:-

(i) The rent payable in respect of the premises, or if no rent is so payable, the rent payable for similar premises in the locality;

(ii) If

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top