Tripura High Court
Shri Ratanmani Chakraborty vs The Union Of India on 7 March, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No.862 of 2016
W.P.(C) No.863 of 2016
In W.P.(C) No.862 of 2016
Petitioner:
Shri Ratanmani Chakraborty,
son of late Annada Charan Chakraborty,
resident of South Jolaibari,
P.O. Thakurcherra,
P.S. Baikhora,
Sub-Division: Santirbazar,
District: South Tripura
By Advocate :
Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Senior Advocate
Ms. P. Sen, Advocate
-V E R S U S-
Respondents:
1. The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways, Parivahan
Bhavan, 1-Parliament Street, New Delhi-
110001
2. The Competent Authority for NH-44,
Addl. District Magistrate & Collector, South
Tripura, P.O. & Sub-Division: Belonia,
District: South Tripura
3. The Arbitrator for NH-44,
The District Magistrate & Collector,
South Tripura, P.O. Belonia,
District: South Tripura
By Advocate :
Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. G.A.
Mr. B. Majumder, CGC
In W.P.(C) No.863 of 2016
Petitioner:
Shri Ratanmani Chakraborty,
son of late Annada Charan Chakraborty,
resident of South Jolaibari,
P.O. Thakurcherra,
P.S. Baikhora,
Sub-Division: Santirbazar,
District: South Tripura
By Advocate :
Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Senior Advocate
Ms. P. Sen, Advocate
-V E R S U S-
Respondents:
1. The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways, Parivahan
Bhavan, 1-Parliament Street, New Delhi-
110001
2. The Competent Authority for NH-44,
Addl. District Magistrate & Collector, South
Tripura, P.O. & Sub-Division: Belonia,
District: South Tripura
3. The Arbitrator for NH-44,
The District Magistrate & Collector,
South Tripura, P.O. Belonia,
District: South Tripura
By Advocate :
Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. G.A.
Mr. B. Majumder, CGC
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Date of hearing & delivery of
Judgment and order : 07.03.2017
Whether fit for reporting : No
W.P.(C) Nos.862 of 2016 and 863 of 2016
Page 2 of 6
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned C.G.C. appearing for the respondent No.1.
[2] Both these writ petitions being W.P.(C)No.862 of 2016 [Ratanmani Chakraborty vs. Union of India & Ors] and W.P.(C)No.863 of 2016 [Ratanmani Chakraborty vs. Union of India & Ors] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as a common question of law wades through this writ petition. However, there may be some variation in the factual matrix but those are not very relevant for determination of the controversy. [3] The fact that is not in dispute is that under the National Highways Act, 1956, the land of the petitioner was acquired. The award has been made for compensating him. Even though, the petitioner did not resent against the said award, but the National Highway Authorities raised serious objection. As consequence thereof, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
[4] The petitioner has clearly stated that he was given the notice to accept the compensation as determined by the respondent No.2, the competent authority. But on 15.02.2016, the petitioner W.P.(C) Nos.862 of 2016 and 863 of 2016 Page 3 of 6 received a notice from the respondent No.3, the Arbitrator that 125 cases have been fixed on 23.03.2016 for decision. The petitioner appeared in the place of arbitration i.e. Jolaibari Community Hall. There was no ambience for arbitral proceeding. There broke out chaos, as the interested persons lost their tolerance failing to impress the arbitrator for taking up their cases.
[5] On 17.03.2016, the petitioner received the notice [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] whereby he was called upon to acknowledge the amount as purportedly determined by the said arbitrator. It is apparent on the face of the records that the arbitrator has reduced the amount of compensation as determined by the competent authority. Thus, the compensation as determined by the arbitrator was wholly unaccepted to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter made a communications to the arbitrator to supply the signed copy of the arbitral award as provided under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and a copy of the objection filed by the respondent No.1. But till now the petitioner has not been favoured neither with the signed copy of the arbitral award as referred nor with the notice dated 17.03.2016. As a result of which the petitioner could not file objection against the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inasmuch as Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that an application for setting aside may not be made after three months had elapsed from the date on which the party making that W.P.(C) Nos.862 of 2016 and 863 of 2016 Page 4 of 6 application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal.
[6] In the case in hand, there is no relevance of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 but since the petitioner had not been provided the signed copy of the arbitral award, the petitioner could not submit the objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or its new version. The arbitral award has been passed by denying the right of the petitioner for representation of his interests.
[7] Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that with their counter- affidavit they have annexed the arbitral award passed by the respondent No.2. According to him, for that the writ petitions has become infructuous.
[8] Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC has adopted the submission of Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. GA.
[9] This court is unable to accept the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents inasmuch as the right to get a signed arbitral award is the statutory right as provided under Section 5 to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Unless the signed arbitral award is provided, the petitioner cannot lawfully approach the District Judge for setting aside the said award which has W.P.(C) Nos.862 of 2016 and 863 of 2016 Page 5 of 6 gone entirely against his interest under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
[10] Having regard to these aspects of the matter, the respondent No.3 is directed to furnish a signed copy of the arbitral award within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the day of the receipt of the copy of this order as it would be furnished by the petitioner. However, Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. may also communicate the copy of this order to the respondent No.3. Further, the respondent No.2 is directed to furnish a copy of the objection on the basis of which the reference to the arbitral was made, to the petitioner within 15(fifteen) days from the day of the receipt of the copy of this order from the petitioner. However Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. may also communicate a copy this order to the respondent No.2 as well.
[11] With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.
It is made clear that this court has not made any observation on merit of the arbitral award.
There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be furnished to learned counsel for the parties for their use.
JUDGE Moumita W.P.(C) Nos.862 of 2016 and 863 of 2016 Page 6 of 6