The Patna High Court, while dismissing a petition filed challenging the Award dated 02.11.2012 passed by the Sole Arbitrator-cum-Superintendent Engineer, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, which is wholly without jurisdiction and as an abuse of the power of the Arbitrator who acted as an agent of the Department of Water Resources, held that the contention that the Superintendent Engineer who is below the rank of Chief Engineer cannot be the Arbitrator cannot be accepted at this juncture, as the petitioner had himself consented to the appointment of Brajkishore Rajak as the Arbitrator.
Brief Facts:
Pursuant to the tender for the construction of a canal of Durgawati Right Main Canal, the petitioner made an offer that was accepted by the Department and work was allotted to the writ petitioner. The value of the work was Rs. 79,71,309/-. Pursuant to it, the petitioner and 6th respondent entered into a contract. The petitioner had made a representation before the Secretary and the Secretary passed a detailed order dated 03.08.2005 and the same was challenged by the petitioner. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, with the consent of the Department/respondents and the petitioner, an Arbitrator was appointed to settle the disputes between the parties as per the terms of the agreement.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Sole Arbitrator appointed was the Superintendent Engineer of the Department and therefore, the Arbitrator was in hands and gloves with the respondents and have not determined the issues which were placed before him. Therefore, it is just necessary to set aside the Award passed by the Arbitrator.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Arbitrator gave full opportunity to both parties to support their claim, and passed the detailed Award. The Contractor/petitioner did not pay the aforesaid amount pursuant to the Award. During the Arbitral proceeding, neither any prayer nor any affidavit by way of evidence was produced by either of the parties. Both the parties were also given full opportunity to make oral submissions.
The Court observed that consent was given by the petitioner at the time of appointing Brajkishore Rajak as the sole Arbitrator-cum-Superintendent Engineer, Flood Control Circle. Therefore, the contention that the Superintendent Engineer who is below the rank of Chief Engineer cannot be the Arbitrator cannot be accepted at this juncture, as the petitioner had himself consented to the appointment of Brajkishore Rajak as the Arbitrator. The Arbitration Award clearly discloses that no document was filed during the course of the arbitration proceeding and evidence was not led by either party. In spite of specific directions, the petitioner himself did not lead proper evidence before the Arbitrator, which cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Arbitrator
Case Title: Neeraj Construction Pvt. Ltd. v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21044 of 2013
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Umashankar Prasad
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :