Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapan Kumar Basak vs The Union Of India And Others on 25 October, 2017
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1
SL 25.10. W.P. No.2770(W) of 2017
88. 2017
BPg.
Tapan Kumar Basak
Versus
The Union of India and others.
Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Mr. Susovan Sengupta,
Mr. Subir Pal.
...for the State.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging the order passed by learned Arbitrator
under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act,
1956.
Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that learned Arbitrator heard on the
issue in connection with arbitration proceeding, but did
not pass any order. He further submits that
subsequently learned Arbitrator again took up the
hearing of arbitration proceeding and passed the award
and as such the award passed by learned Arbitrator is
not justified under the law.
Mr. De, learned counsel for the State-
respondents submits that once award is passed by
2
learned Arbitrator, the Writ Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction to interfere in the said award.
Having heard learned counsel representing the respective parties, I find justification in the submission made on behalf of the State-respondents. Since the award has been passed by the learned Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the said award can be challenged by the petitioner before the appropriate forum. The Writ Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction in connection with award passed by learned Arbitrator. In view of above findings, the writ application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the appropriate forum for challenging the award passed by learned Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956.
( R. K. Bag, J. )