Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 28732 OF 2022 PETITIONER: JOHN JOSEPH AGED 56 YEARS S/O.K.J.GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SOLVE ASSOCIATES, ELAMKUNNAPPUZHA, VYPIN, MALIPPURAM, KOCHI TALUK, PIN - 682 511. BY ADVS. SHAJI THANKAPPAN SUBIN K SUDHEER RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMANDING OFFICER INHS SANJEEVANT, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI NAVAL BASE P.O., 2 LOGISTIC OFFICER INHS SAJEEVANI, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI NAVAL BASE P.O., 3 HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT (DIETICIAN) INHS SAJEEVANI, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI NAVAL BASE P.O., 4 COMMAND LOGISTIC OFFICER (C-LOGO) HEAD QUARTERS SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND (HQSNC), KOCHI NAVAL BASE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 004. 5 COMMAND-IN-CHIEF HEAD QUARTERS SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND (HQSNC), KOCHI NAVAL BASE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 004.
BY ADVS. SMT.H.SUBHALEKSHMI, CGC SRI.S.MANU, DSGI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2022 The petitioner is a registered contractor and has been awarded the contract for “Health Care Resource Outsource Service' by the 1st respondent. The category of service is Dietitian for ‘INHS Sanjeevani’ for a period of one year from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022. In terms of the contract, the petitioner provided a qualified Dietitian. Later, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the Dietitian, the petitioner terminated her service with effect from 30.06.2022 and provided a new Dietitian from 01.07.2022 onwards. The respondents refused to accept the new Dietitian and did not issue even an entry pass to her. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
contended that the respondents cannot compel the petitioner to provide the service of any particular Dietitian, since the contract gives the liberty to supply a person of the petitioner's choice. The respondents can complain about the person so supplied, only if the service rendered by him/her is bad.
3. Learned Central Government Counsel
submitted that the Dietitian appointed by the petitioner had informed the respondents about the malpractices being committed by the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner was put on notice about the alleged malpractices and his explanation was sought. The petitioner claims to have filed his objections in the GeM portal. Learned Central Government Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of arbitration.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel, I have no hesitation to hold that the dispute involved in this writ petition cannot be resolved in a proceeding under Article 226. Moreover, the petitioner can avail the remedy of resolving the dispute through arbitration. The writ petition is hence dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to resort to other remedies. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/25-10 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28732/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CONTRACT NO.GEMC-511687708188557 DATED RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF NEW DIETITIAN OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED NOTICE. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARDS SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF EXT.P3 BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 4. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 26/8/2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE