ORDER :

1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – M/s. Himayala Traders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 26.10.2023 and 31.10.2023 (Annexures P/8 and P/9) passed by the respondent No.4. Vide letter dated 26.10.2023 the security deposit has been forfeited by the respondents and bank guarantee has been invoked, whereas vide letter dated 31.10.2023 the respondent No.4 has also issued a letter seeking payment of outstanding dues and in case the petitioner fails to do so, it was threatened to terminate the license agreement.

3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of liquor. The petitioner was granted license at Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Airport, Indore for the purposes of operating duty paid liquor shop in arrival hall. The license agreement was executed on 31.08.2022. The license was valid for a period of five years with effect from 03.12.2022 to 02.12.2027 unless terminated. Admittedly, a dispute has arisen in respect of the aforesaid agreement.

4] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action taken by the respondents runs contrary to the provisions of law as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the same. It is also submitted that respondents have created various hurdles for the petitioner to operate the shop, which has led to heavy losses being suffered by the petitioner and the petitioner has already involved the internal dispute resolution clause contained in the agreement. However, the respondents have still adjusted the security deposit and an amount of Rs.19,58,382/- is shown as outstanding on account of demurrage charges. It is also stated that the respondents have illegally painted the entire shop with black colour.

5] A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondents contending that since there is an arbitration clause contained in the license agreement, the petition itself is liable to be dismissed as the same is not maintainable on account of availability of the remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to clause 29 of the general terms and conditions of the license, which provides alternate dispute resolution system. In support of his submissions, counsel for the respondents has also relied upon certain decisions in the cases of Nirmal Software Services Private Limited Vs. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and others reported as (2019) 7 SCC 356; Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others; reported as (2000) 6 SCC 293; State of U.P. and others Vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd. reported as (1996) 6 SCC 22; E to E Transportation Infrastructure Private Limited Through its Authorized Representative Anurag Choudhary Vs. Ircon International Limited Through its Chairman Having Corporate reported as 2022 SCC OnLine MP 2143; and State of Kerala and others Vs. M. K. Jose reported as 2016 (2) MPLJ 327.

6] Having considered rival submissions, perusal of the documents filed on record, this Court finds that so far as the license agreement is concerned, the dispute resolution clause of the same reads as under:-

“29. All disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this Agreement (except those the decision whereof is otherwise herein before expressly provided for or to which the AAT ACT,1994 and the rules framed there-under which are now enforced or which may here-after come into force are applicable), shall, in the first instance, be referred to a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) setup at the airports, for which a written application should be obtained from the party and the points clearly spelt out. In case the dispute is not resolved within 45 days of reference, then the case shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person to be appointed by the Chairm