National Council Of Science ... vs Bridge And Roof Company (India) ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 872 Del

$~16
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 5024/2013 & CM No.11323/2013
       NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SCIENCE MUSEUMS ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with
                             Ms.Meenakshi Midha and
                             Mr. Siddhartha Nagpal, Advs.
                   versus

       BRIDGE AND ROOF COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. ..... Respondent
                      Through: Mr. A.P. Dhamija and Mr. J.P. Singh,
                               Advs.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                ORDER

% 30.01.2015

1. In the petition, challenge is laid to the order of the appellate authority dated 8.5.2010, passed in appeal No.6/2007. The said order was passed by the then Law Secretary, who acted as the Appellate Authority under the Permanent Machinery for Arbitration (in short PMA) mechanism set up by the Government of India.

2. The petitioner has confined his objection in the present petition to one singular ground, which is, that against the award dated 18.9.2007, an appeal was preferred as per the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 22.1.2004 (which is the administrative issued for conceiving a PMA mechanism) with regard to disputes between public enterprises.

3. The said appeal was heard by the then Law Secretary. Orders in the appeal were reserved, admittedly, by him on 22.3.2009. The Law Secretary, demitted office on 31.10.2009.

W.P.(C) 5024/2013 page 1 of 2

4. These aspects of the matter are not in dispute. 4.1 Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner before me, is that, having demitted the office, the then Law Secretary could not have delivered the award on 8.5.2010, as he had become functus officio.

5. Mr. Dhamija has not been able to contest this aspect on fact or in law. Therefore, he is agreed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the concerned authority for a decision in the appeal.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 8.5.2010 is set aside. The petitioner's appeal will be heard by the Law Secretary or any person authorised by him as per clause X of the aforesaid OM.

7. Since the matter has been pending a decision in the appeal now for quite some time, the appellate authority, is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

8. The application is disposed of.

                                                     RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 30, 2015
s.pal
W.P.(C) 5024/2013                                                page 2 of 2