JUDGMENT

Prayer: W.P. No.26119 of 2021 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent, culminating in the impugned Office Memorandum dated 11th Nov., 2021, bearing No.PD-13/18/2020-PPP/e-338899 disbanding the Committee constituted by the 1st respondent and to quash the same as being arbitrary, unilateral and against the principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the 1st respondent to set out the policy/the manner in which the disputes/issues between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are to are to be settled within a time frame to be determined by the Hon’ble Court.

W.P. No.26121 of 2021 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to ensure that the members of the Committee expeditiously proceed with the process/proceedings initiated by the first respondent vide office memorandum dated 21.7.2020 for settlement of disputes between the petitioner and the second respondent, including by issuing necessary directions to submit report/recommendations to the first respondent suggesting the way forward and solutions to the issues within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court, after granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and making representations and after considering the issues raised by the petitioner.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the disbandment of the Committee, which had been constituted by the 1st respondent for the purpose of resolving the disputes/issues with regard to the issue pertaining to royalty as a part of the tariff forming part of the Tariff Order, which has been since been reduced drastically in total deviation of the licence agreement.

2. The facts, just and necessary for the disposal of the present petition could be stated as under :-

The petitioner company, being the successful bidder, in the tender process for operating the Container Terminal in the 2nd respondent Port, in pursuance of the licence agreement, had been handling the Container Terminal since 1997 on Build, Operate and Transfer basis (for short ‘BOT’) with the tariff for the charges, inclusive of royalty, being finalised through the various Tariff Orders by the Tariff Regulator/Government, viz., Tariff Authority for Major Ports (for short ‘TAMP’). The said tariff orders are to be reviewed once in three years and the petitioner was to continue operation and maintenance of the Terminal for a period of 30 years as per the terms of the licence agreement. The royalty collected by the petitioner was, in turn, paid to the 2nd respondent.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the TAMP had drastically cut the tariffs and disallowed inclusion of royalty as an element of cost, while finalising the tariff for the years 2002 and 2008, which resulted in financial loss to the petitioner and against the said order, writ petition in W.P. Nos.40637 to 40639 of 2002 was filed before this Court, which granted interim orders and permitted the petitioner to collect tariff at the rates prevailing since 1999. The said scenario continued between the years 2005 to 2011 which resulted in series of writ petitions being filed by the petitioner and this Court granted interim directions against which writ appeals have been filed, which are pending.

4. Inspite of repeated cuts in the rates of tariff, the royalty under the licence agreement was being escalated higher each year, the financial outflow of the petitioner increased dwindling its financial position, thereby incurring loss and as the a result, the royalty payable by the petitioner exceeded the charges received by the petitioner towards the container handling charges charged by the petitioner. In such a backdrop, the petitioner invoking the arbitration clause in the licence agreement, filed petition u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before th