JUDGMENT

1. With the consent, finally heard.

2. This appeal filed under section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act) takes exception to the order dated 28.10.2003, whereby the Court below rejected the application filed by the appellant under section 9 of the Arbitration Act.

3. Draped in brevity, the admitted facts between the parties are that an agreement was entered into between them regarding parking at Itarsi Railways Station on 27.2.2017 and its duration was from 17.8.2018 to 16.8.2023. The grievance of the appellant is that during this period, the Covid Pandemic broke out. Because of that, for certain period, he could not get any business but continued to pay the licence fee. Thus, it was his expectation that the contract period will be suitably extended. Clause 10 of the relevant contract provides that the contract is renewal for a period of three months at a time and maximum upto nine months. By invoking this Clause although the period of contract was extended upto 14.11.2023, the Railway Administration entered into another contract with another agency, which will come into force w.e.f. 15.11.2023.

Appellant’s contention :--

4. It is urged by appellant that since, the appellant was deprived of the business during Covid Pandemic, in all fairness the Railway Administration should have extended the contract period upto maximum nine months. By placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2016) 3 SCC 582 (Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways and others v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association and another), Shri Atul Choudhari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of ratio decidendi of this judgment, the livelihood of the employees who are dependent on the appellant- Contractor will be on stake and, therefore, in the light of this judgment, the period of contract may be extended. The Court below has committed an error in not extending the period upto the extent it was permissible in the teeth of Clause 1 of the contract.

Stand of Railways :--

5. Sounding a contra note, Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Deputy Solicitor General supported the impugned order and drew our attention to another clause 7.1 of the Parking Policy to bolster his submission that this kind of clause was not there before the apex Court in the case of Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways and others v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association (supra). In the light of this clause, no fault can be found in the action of railways administration in giving contract to a different agency.

6. It is noteworthy that the appellant got contract for an amount of Rs.18,74,250/- whereas from new licensee, the Railway Administration will get Rs.1,21,59,900/-. If power of interim measure is exercised in favour of appellant, it will result into huge loss to the Railway Administration and to the public. Thus, necessary ingredients for grant of interim measure are not available in favour of the petitioner.

7. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Findings :--

9. Before dealing with rival contention, it is apposite to quote the relevant clauses of the contract and parking policy :--

“Clause 10 of the Contract :--

(i) All the taxes applicable will be deposited by licensee over and above the license fee to concerned department as applicable. Tax clearance certificate should be produced on demand.

(ii) Validity of License :

Subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Indenture, the License shall be for a period up to 5 years commencing from 17.8.2018 and terminating on 16.8.2023 renewable further for the period up to 3 months at a time (maximum up to 9 months).”

Parking Policy :--

“7.1:-- Normally, extension of existing contract period should be avoided by proper advance planning. However, in