Kalipada Pal vs State Of W.B. & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5533 Cal

   17
07.10.2021
 Ct. No.10
   b.das


                                W.P.A. 22970 of 2019

                           (Via Video Conference)


                         Kalipada Pal
                                 Vs.
                         State of W.B. & Ors.




                   Mr. P. P. Roy
                   Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee             ...for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Jahar Lad De
                   Mr. Shamim-ul-Bari                ...for the State.

                   Ms. Manika Roy                    ...for the NHAI.


                   Heard learned counsels for the parties.

                   It is not in dispute that being aggrieved by the

             compensation granted to the petitioner by the respondent

authorities for acquisition of his land, the petitioner took

recourse to arbitration under Section 3G (5) of the National

Highways Act, 1956 and participated in the said

arbitration, the arbitral award being granted on 2 nd

February, 2018.

The allegation of the petitioner is that copy of the

award was not supplied to him by the authority. Fair and

adequate compensation has not been awarded to him in

the arbitral proceeding under the Act of 2013 though the

award was declared after 01.01.2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance upon judgment in Bhaben Construction Through

Authorized Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah vs. Executive

Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. & Anr. in

Civil Appeal No.14665 of 2015. Referring to paragraphs

10, 17 and 19 of the judgment, learned counsel submits

that the petitioner being able to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances and bad faith on the part of the authority in

depriving the petitioner of his legitimate claim, this Court

in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India can entertain the prayer of

the petitioner.

Per contra, the State authorities and the NHAI also

place reliance upon the same judgment and submit that

the petitioner not having taken steps against the arbitral

award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 and having submitted to the jurisdiction of

arbitration, is debarred from raising the same issue before

the writ court.

Admittedly, the petitioner approached the arbitrator

under Section 3G (5) of the Act of 1956 for redressal of his

grievance with regard to inadequate compensation granted

to him.

The petitioner participated in the said proceeding

and final arbitral award was granted on 2 nd February, 2018

upon consideration of the prayer of the petitioner made

before the learned arbitrator. No appeal has been preferred

by the petitioner against the said award under Section 34

of the Act of 1996.

The petitioner has also failed to demonstrate any

exceptional circumstance or 'bad faith' to justify the

consideration of his grievances in the present writ petition.

Alternative efficacious remedy being available to the

petitioner before a statutory forum and the petitioner not

having availed of such remedy, the present writ petition is

not maintainable.

This Court in exercise of its extraordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot

usurp the jurisdiction of the appellate authority under the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Accordingly WPA 22970 of 2019 is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained

in the petition are deemed not to be admitted.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all

requisite formalities.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)