JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking therein direction to respondent No. 2 to renew licence of Shop No. 42 and not to enforce recovery of amount in terms of notice dated 7.6.2017 (Annexure P-4). Petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering in any manner, in the shop and business of the petitioner, pending disposal of the case at hand. 2. Necessary facts as emerge from the record are that the respondents constructed a market yard at Parala (Theog) by incurring an expenditure of Rs.12.76 Crore. In order to make the yard functional, respondent No.2 Committee decided to make allotment of shops at newly constructed market yard in open auction in terms of Bye Law No. 62 and Allotment Policy 2014. Respondent Committee invited applications through public notice dated 10.6.2015 published in daily newspaper “Amar Ujala”. Respondents, with a view to invite greater competition and established businessmen, held its meeting dated 9.7.2015 prior to commencement of auction proceedings and decided that there would be minimum premium/base price for shops under respective categories i.e. Rs.6,000. Petitioner amongst others also participated in the auction qua Shop No. 42. Petitioner offered bid of Rs.32,000/- qua Shop No. 42 in the category of Traders under the Allotment Policy. She duly signed allotment proceedings of her own volition. As per record, petitioner also paid rent qua Shop No. 42 at the rate of Rs.32,000/- per month till May, 2016. Petitioner stopped paying rent after aforesaid date and raised a dispute that since minimum base price was fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of auction, she was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.6,000/- only. Vide legal notice dated 10.7.2017 (Annexure P-2), petitioner called upon the respondent Board to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of Section 80 of the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural and Horticulture Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2005. Since no action was taken by the respondents pursuant to aforesaid notice, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for interim protection, as has been mentioned herein above. 3. Respondent Board, by way of reply, has categorically disputed the claim put forth by the petitioner that she was liable to pay rent of Rs.6,000/- only. Since no action was taken by the respondents pursuant to aforesaid notice, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for interim protection, as has been mentioned herein above. 3. Respondent Board, by way of reply, has categorically disputed the claim put forth by the petitioner that she was liable to pay rent of Rs.6,000/- only. Respondents have further stated in the reply that Rs.6,000/- was fixed as minimum base rent for the shops and tenderers were required to offer their bids over and above that amount. Since petitioner in the category of ‘traders’ offered price of Rs.32,000/- qua Shop No. 42, she could not be allowed to raise a dispute, if any, qua the same at this stage. It has been further stated in the reply that similarly situate persons have approached civil court, praying therein for same and similar relief, but the civil suits filed by them are still pending adjudication. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Having carefully perused the pleadings as well as documents adduced on record, there appears to be no force in the arguments of Mr. Lakshay Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner that she was liable to pay rent qua Shop No. 42 at the rate of Rs.6,000/- only. It is quite apparent from the record that the respondent Committee before commencement of auction proceedings convened a meeting of all the tenderers and informed that minimum reserved price would be Rs.6,000/-, whereafter, all the tenderers including petitioner offered their respective bids qua the shops intended to be taken by them on rent. 6. Mr. Lakshay Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner was unable to dispute the fact that in the auction proceedings held on 9.7.2015, petitioner had offered bid of Rs. 32,000/- qua Shop No. 42. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner pursuant to allotment made in her favour in open auction executed agreement with the respondents, wherein, she categorically agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.32,000/- qua Shop allotted to her in the open auction, which she paid till May, 2016. Thereafter, petitioner stopped paying rent on the pretext that respondents could not charge rent over and above Rs.6,000/- fixed at the time of auction. 7. Thereafter, petitioner stopped paying rent on the pretext that respondents could not charge rent over and above Rs.6,000/- fixed at the time of auction. 7. Though Section 80 of the Act ibid suggests that in the event of dispute, if any, inter se parties, matter shall be resolved through conciliation and arbitration but this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Sanjay Ranta, learned counsel representing the respondents that there is no dispute inter se parties, which can be referred to arbitration. 8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner herself participated in the open auction and offered amount of Rs. 32,000/- qua Shop No. 42 and as such, she can not be allowed to plead at this stage that the respondents could not charge amount over and above Rs. 6,000/- per month qua the shop in question. Otherwise also, aforesaid contention of the petitioner is without any merit and deserves outright rejection. Apparently, before commencement of auction proceedings, all the tenderers including petitioner were informed that they are supposed to offer price over and above Rs.6,000/- i.e. minimum base rent, where after, all the tenderers including petitioner offered their respective price/bids qua the shops intended to be taken by them on rent. 9. Since petitioner by way of agreement agreed to pay Rs.32,000/- qua Shop No. 42, there can not be any dispute qua the same and as such, there is no dispute, if any, inter se parties qua the same, which is required to be referred to arbitration in terms of Section 80 of the Act ibid. 10. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no merit in the present petition and same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Interim orders, if any, passed in the present petition are vacated.