Dr.M.C.Johny vs National Highway Authority Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 10107 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10107 Ker
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Dr.M.C.Johny vs National Highway Authority Of India on 5 April, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                     WP(C) NO. 19377 OF 2013
PETITIONER:

            DR.M.C.JOHNY
            AGED 72 YEARS
            S/O.LATE MR.M.P. CHAKKAPPAN, MANJALI HOUSE,
            PUDUKKAD (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680301.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH
            SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY
            SMT.SAVITHA GANAPATHIYATAN
            SRI.M.M.SHAJAHAN

RESPONDENTS:

    1       NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT
            IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY
            OF INDIA, NO.8/1187, ARUMUGHAN COLONY,
            CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 007.
    2       SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR
            SLAO & COMPETENT AUTHORITY (L.A), NATIONAL
            HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
            PIN - 680020.
            BY ADVS.
            K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
            SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   05.04.2024,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.19377 of 2013

                                   2




                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
         ---------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No. 19377 of 2013
     ------------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 05th day of April, 2024.


                           JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

reliefs:

"a. To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refer Exhibit-P3 application for Arbitration.

b. Issue such other order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the fact and circumstance of the case."[SIC]

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that,

even though an application is filed for referring the

matter to the Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the

National Highways Act, 1956, the same is not

considered. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2 nd

respondent in which it is clearly stated that, no such

petition is received in that office. Moreover, the 1 st

respondent, National Highway authority also filed a

counter affidavit. The relevant portion of the counter

affidavit filed by the 1st respondent is extracted

hereunder:

"7. Sec. 3G (5) of the NH Act enshrines that if the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to the parties the amount shall, on an application by the parties, be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. The Central Government has appointed the District Collector, Thrissur as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has re-determined the amount of compensation following the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, in most of the Arbitration cases filed before it by the aggrieved parties from Thoravu Village. The time limit for filing arbitration petition before the Arbitrator is three years from the date of award by the 2 nd respondent. There is no provision for the referring the matter for arbitration by the 2nd respondent, on an application to it by the affected parties. The writ petitioner had not filed any arbitration petition to the Arbitrator with in

the period of three years after the passing of Ext.P1. This respondent has no knowledge regarding the filing of Ext.P3 before the 2 nd respondent or the further action taken on it by the 2 nd respondent. There is no provision under the NH Act 1956 for the filing of an Arbitration application before the 2nd respondent for it to refer the same to the Arbitrator. If the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P1 award, he should have filed an application within the limitation period before the Arbitrator appointed under the NH Act 1956. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, to some how wriggle out of the limitation period, after Ext.P1 has become final, has approached this Hon'ble Court for enhancement invoking the writ jurisdiction, ignoring the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. The above writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed."

In the light of the above counter affidavit, no

relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Therefore, this Writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN L.A.C.NO.207/2005.

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.37301/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT-P3: COPY OF THE ARBITRATION REQUEST.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE