Allahabad High Court
Chandrakali vs District Magistrate And Another on 1 November, 2019
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35244 of 2019 Petitioner :- Chandrakali Respondent :- District Magistrate/Arbitrator And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Dubey,Devendra Nath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to decide the Arbitration Case No.D201916530001151 (Chandrakali and others Vs. Union of India and others) filed by the petitioner under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1956") expeditiously.
3. Facts in brief as contained in the Writ Petition are that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the National Highways Authority by issuing notifications under Section 3-A and 3-D of the Act, 1956 on 15.01.2018 and 02.04.2018 respectively. The award was published by the competent authority on 16.10.2018. Aggrieved against the amount determined by the competent authority as compensation in the award, the petitioner has submitted an application as provided under Section 3 G(5) of the Act, 1956 before the respondent No.1/Arbitrator which was numbered as Case No.D201916530001151 (Chandrakali and others Vs. Union of India and others).
4. It is argued that although a considerable time has already elapsed but till date no decision has been taken by the respondent No.1 on the aforesaid application and prayed that to issue a mandamus directing the respondent No.1/District Magistrate/Arbitrator National Highways Authority, Mirzapur to decide the Arbitration Case No.D201916530001151 (Chandrakali and others Vs. Union of India and others).
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage its.
6. From perusal for the facts as narrated above, it appears that aggrieved with the award passed by the competent authority, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the Arbitrator/respondent No.1 as provided under Section 3 G (5) of the Act, 1956. Sub Section 6 of Section 3 G further provides that the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will apply in the proceeding. For ready reference, Sub Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, 1956 is quoted below:-
"Section 3G Determination of amount payable as compensation ---
Sub Section (5) - If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
Sub Section (6) - Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act."
7. In Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996"), a time limit has been fixed by the Parliament for deciding the arbitration case. It is provided under Sub Section 1 of Section 29-A of the Act, 1996 that the award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference. It is further provided under Sub Section 3 of Section 29-A of the Act, 1996 that the parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months. It is further provided under Sub Section 4 of Section 29-A of the Act, 1996 that if the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period. The relevant portion of Section 29-A of the Act, 1996 is quoted below:-
"29-A. Time limit for arbitral award.--
(1) The award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, an arbitral tribunal shall be deemed to have entered upon the reference on the date on which the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be, have received notice, in writing, of their appointment.
(2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree.
(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months.
(4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period."
8. From perusal of Section 29-A of the Act, 1996, it is clear that the Parliament has fixed the time limit to decide the arbitration case/reference, hence, the Arbitrator is duty bound to decide the same within the time limit as prescribed under Section 29-A of the Act, 1996.
9. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the respondent no.1 to decide Arbitration Application/Objection Case No. D201916530001151 (Chandrakali and others Vs. Union of India and others) pending before him expeditiously but not later than six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
10. It is made clear that the petitioner/parties will not take any unnecessary adjournments.
11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.11.2019 saqlain