Sri Santosh Saha vs The State Of Tripura & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 858 Tri

                                Page 1 of 3




                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                        ARB P No.06 of 2022

Sri Santosh Saha                                  ........Petitioner(s)

                                  Versus

The State of Tripura & others                     ........Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)      : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.,
                         Mr. Anujit Dey, Advocate.

  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
                           _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
16/09/2022

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section

11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment

of an arbitrator.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mr. B.P

Das, Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B) had been appointed as an

arbitrator and passed a nil award dated 02.01.2014. Challenging the said

order, the petitioner had moved the Court of the learned District Judge,

West Tripura, Agartala in Misc.(ARB) No.02 of 2014 dated 01.03.2019

whereby the nil award passed by the arbitrator was set aside. It may be

pertinent to mention herein that the original arbitration award proceeded

to nil award on the ground of limitation. This order was set aside by the

learned District Judge in the aforementioned case. Learned counsel for

the petitioner further submits that the said arbitrator, namely, Shri B.P

Das at the time when the award was passed, was working as

Superintending Engineer under the State Government and therefore he

submits that in view of the amendment made to the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act the said arbitrator has lost his mandate and cannot be

permitted to continue and a fresh arbitrator needs to be appointed. For

this purpose, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case of Ellora paper Mills Limited versus State of Madhya

Pradesh reported in (2022) 3 SCC 1.

Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate

appearing for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer made by the

petitioner inter alia contending that 34 applications of the petitioner came

to be allowed by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala on

01.03.2019 and therefore there has been substantial delay in filing the

present application for appointment of an arbitrator.

In response to the contention advanced by the learned

Government Advocate, counsel for the petitioner submits that after the

order was passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, they appeared

before the Chief Engineer (appointing authority) for appointment of an

alternative arbitrator over the matter but there was no response to the

same. Hence, necessarily filing of the present petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, this

Court is of the considered view that the disputes raised by the petitioner

before the arbitrator remain to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. The so

called appointing authority i.e. Chief Engineer in view of the amendment

made to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot act as an appointee

and has lost his mandate. However, it is also pertinent to mention herein

that the State has not preferred any challenge to the order passed by the

District Judge referred hereinabove. Consequently, this Court appoints

retired Hon'ble Justice Mr. S.C Das to act as an arbitrator and proceed

with the matter, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, petition is disposed of.

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ

Dipesh