: The provisions of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 are independent and not overridden by arbitration agreements or conditions in contracts.

JUDGEMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

There are there are various tangent arguments, which have been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which are contrary to the pleadings itself, which has been raised in the Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition, has put a challenge to the letter dated 2nd March, 2022, which was issued by respondent No. 1, for recovering the amount, which was said to be due to be paid by the petitioner in pursuance to the contact executed in his favour for running, operating and parking of Rajiv Gandhi Multipurpose Complex, which was executed on 19th December, 2015, and for which, a Memorandum of Understanding was also got executed on 1st February, 2016, which was supposed to hold good during the period of subsistence of the contract, which was for 5 years commencing from 1st March, 2016 till 28th February, 2021.

3. Clause 10 of the Memorandum of Understanding provided an arbitration clause, that in case of any dispute between the parties, who are signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding, the matter would be referred to the Chief Administrator, who has to be appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute, which would be binding.

4. In fact, the Writ Petition is foundationed on Clause 10, wherein, the petitioner has submitted, that in fact, the recourse to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, is contrary because Clause 10 of the Memorandum of Understanding, would be equally binding on the respondent No.1, herein, and the said Clause has been inferred to, that in an eventuality if any amount, which is falling due to be paid by the petitioner under the terms of the contract, that could have been recovered by the respondents as per Clause 10, only after having recourse to the arbitration proceedings. Secondly, he submits that the respondent No.1, will not acquire the status of the Corporation, in order to bring the impugned action of recovery of the amount under the provisions of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.

5. This Court feels it necessary to deal with the first argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the implications of Clause 10. Clause 10 of the Memorandum of Understanding is extracted hereunder :-

“10. ARBITRATION

In case of any dispute arising between the parties as regard to the work of operation arising from the terms and conditions of this MOU or with regard to definition of any clause or condition of the MOU, the same shall be tried to be resolved amicably by the parties and in case of failure to do so, the same shall be referred for arbitration to the sole arbitrator who shall be the Chief Administrator, UHUDA or any officer to be appointed by him in this behalf, whose decision shall be final and binding on both the parties. The parties agree to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.”

6. If the language of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the U.P Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, is taken into consideration, in fact, the provisions of the Act is in supersession to any of the terms and conditions of the arbitration agreement or conditions contained in it, provided under the contact between the two signatories and the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1972, would be independent to the arbitration proceedings settled between the parties in terms of the understanding or the contract.

7. In that view of the matter, the argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the recovery resorted to is bad in the eyes of law, the recourse should have been for referring the matter to the Arbitrator under Clause 10, is not acceptable in view of the specific legislative intention of the provisions contained under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act of 1972, which is extracted hereunder:-

“In the case of any agreement referred to in subsection (1) between any person referred to in that subsection and the State Government or the Corporation, no arbitration proceedings shall lie at the instan