2020:BHC-OS:6453-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 1699 OF 2019 M/s. MEP RGSL Toll Bridge Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Versus

1. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.

2. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.

3. The Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department.

4. The Chairman, Niti Aayog.

5. The Director, Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration. ...Respondents.

with WRIT PETITION NO. 2337 OF 2019 Raima Toll & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Versus

1.Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.

2. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.

3. The Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department.

4. The Chairman, Niti Aayog.

5. The Director, Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration. ...Respondents.

---

Dr. Abhishek M. Sanghvi, Senior Advocate & Mr. Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rajiv Dvivedi, Mr. Azeem Samual Mr. Shyamsundar Solanke i/b. PNP & Associates, for the petitioner in both the Petitions.

Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Arun Siwach, Mr. Vinamra Kopariha, Ms. Prachi Vasudeo i/b. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Laxmikant Satelkar, AGP for respondent no. 3/State.

..…

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA CJ &

G.S.KULKARNI, J.

Reserved on : October 9, 2020 Pronounced on : November 06, 2020 JUDGMENT (PER G.S.KULKARNI,J.):

1. These are two petitions invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first petition is by M/s.MEP RGSL Toll Bridge Pvt. Ltd. (for short “MEPRGSL”), the second petition is by Raima Toll & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (for short “Raima”). Both the petitioners (collectively referred as “petitioners”) are stated to be ‘Special Purpose Vehicles’ of one ‘MEP Infrastructure Developers Limited’. The petitioners were beneficiaries of ‘toll contracts’ awarded by respondent no.1-Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (for short “MSRDC”), which were at different locations and for different periods. The contract period in regard to both these contracts, has long expired. There is no relation between these two contracts, however as the cause of action being common, these petitions are tagged together.

2. On the above prefatory lines, we note that the prayers as made by the petitioners are quite peculiar, which are inter alia of a nature, that the MSRDC, be directed by a writ of this Court, to provide for an ‘arbitration’ qua these toll collection contracts entered by the MSRDC with the petitioners. There is also a somewhat incongruous prayer in the first petition, namely for a declaration that Clause 36 of the agreement dated 29 January 2014 entered between the MSRDC and the petitioner, is itself in the nature of an arbitration agreement. It would be appropriate to note the prayers in both the petitions which read thus:

In Writ Petition no.1699 of 2019 (a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to Respondent No.1 and 2 to act in consonance with Notification No. Shashan Nirnay 2016/P.K.20/KA-19 dated 13.10.2016 and thereby take necessary steps to provide for a dispute resolution mechanism through Arbitration under the auspices of an Arbitration Institute (such as the Respondent No.5 institute) duly recognized by the Govt. of Maharashtra;

(b) Declare and direct the Clause 36 of the Agreement dated 29/01/2014 between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 is itself in the nature of arbitration agreement;

In Writ Petition No.2337 of 2019 (A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order and direction directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 follow, observe and obey the policy guidelines as well as directors of the central government as well as the state government (as detailed and annexed in the writ petition) and take a fresh decision on the offer of the petitioner to go for an arbitration for redressal of the grievances.

(B) That this Hon’ble