IMPORTANT POINT
Adherence to prescribed procedures for termination as per the agreement and the necessity of attempting amicable resolution before invoking the arbitration clause.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed to quash the letter No. 799/2020 dated 08.12.2020 issued by the Managing Director, Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi, whereby the petitioner was intimated that the Project Implementation Plan submitted by it was not accepted being unreasonable and thus, terminated the agreement, which was entered on 18.03.2020.

2. The Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as JTDCL) floated a notice inviting tender for development of tourism properties in Jharkhand on Rennovate, Operate, Maintain and Transfer basis (ROMT basis). Three properties were subject matters of the said tender, i.e., Tourist Complex, Maithon, Dhanbad; Tourist Complex, Urwan, Koderma; and Kanke Dam Park, Ranchi. Petitioner participated in the bidding and was declared successful for the tourism property “Kanke Dam Park, Ranchi”. On 31.10.2019, a letter of award (LoA) was issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the said LoA and agreed with the terms and conditions prescribed. The petitioner deposited Rs.24,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Four Lakh) towards Performance Guarantee and entered into an agreement. The petitioner submitted its Project Proposal/Project Implementation Plan with details. Petitioner was informed that in the Project Plan as there was some proposal to construct some permanent structure, the petitioner was directed to submit a revised Project Implementation Plan as the petitioner was prohibited from making any permanent construction. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted a revised Project Implementation Plan in which, according to the petitioner, all the objections were duly met and had been taken care of. The petitioner, thereafter, received the impugned letter dated 08.12.2020, whereby it was informed that since in the Project Implementation Plan, there is a planning to go with permanent structural plan, as the development of the Project Implementation Plan is not acceptable and the proposal, according to the respondents, was unreasonable, which is beyond the mandate of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and Project Development and Management Agreement (PDMA), his agreement was terminated. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per the Project Report, there is no fresh permanent structure, which the petitioner intended to construct, thus, the impugned order shows non-application of mind. He further submits that there is a provision of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as per the agreement before passing the impugned order of cancellation of contract, but the respondents have done away with the said provision, which resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondents should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to place their case before the respondent authority, which could have easily resolved the dispute, but the respondents, for the reasons best known to them, without issuing any show cause notice, as per the agreement, have terminated the agreement.

4. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, referring to the Counter Affidavit, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is seeking to invoke the terms of non-statutory contract. Further, there is an alternative efficacious dispute resolution clause, in terms of Clause 12.2 of the contract, which the petitioner should have invoked, rather than approaching this Court hurriedly. Mr. Gadodia contends that on 13.10.2020, petitioner was informed that the revised Project Implementation Plan, after incorporating the amendment, should be filed for approval, which the petitioner failed to submit, thus, the impugned order was passed. These submissions of the res