Hotel Mumbai House vs State Government And Others

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present application has been filed with the following prayers:

“A- Appoint an arbitrator for the purpose of solving dispute between Applicant Company & Non-Applicant over the rates of bills.

B- During the pendency of petition an interim amount may be order to pay to the applicant company.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant submits that the applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondents to enlist his hotel to be utilized during the time of pandemic. He also submits that his hotel cannot be used by the State Government during the pandemic time on the rates fixed by the State Government. Thus, a dispute arose between the parties and he prays that the matter may be referred to the Arbitrator.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as far as using of the hotel of the petitioner is concerned, the hotel was utilized by the State Government during pandemic time on the rates fixed by the State Government vide Annex.6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the bills received by the State Government were not in accordance with the rates fixed by the State Government, therefore, the applicant was issued a letter by the State Government on 26.05.2020 to re-submit the bills after getting them certified by the competent officer and in consonance with the rates fixed by the State Government. He, therefore, submits that if the bills in the proper proforma are received by the State Government, the State Government will make the payment thereof.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his hotel could not have been used by the State Government during pandemic time on the rates fixed by the State themselves unilaterally is concerned, this Court finds that the premises of the petitioner i.e. hotel has already been used by the State Government during pandemic time and since the petitioner fails to obtain any restrain order, the State Government had taken use of the premises of the petitioner on the rates fixed. As far as the submission of the bills by the petitioner is concerned, the same are required to be in consonance with the order dated 17.05.2020 passed by the District Collector, Udaipur.

Since the State Government has not rejected the payments due to the petitioner for using the hotel and the same are required to be re-submitted to the State Government in consonance with the order dated 17.05.2020, no cause of action arisen to the petitioner so far for the appointment of the arbitrator.

The application being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed.