SURENDRA KUMAR CHHABDA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein questions the order passed by the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government under section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956') and also collaterally calls in question the order of the Central Government appointing Arbitrator by the Central Government under Sec. 3G(5) of the Act of 1956.

(2.) The aforesaid challenge has been laid on the following factual backdrop: -

(3.) Mr. N.K. Malaviya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was though necessary party and as such ought to have been impleaded in the proceeding before the Additional Commissioner, but he was neither impleaded nor heard and award passed by the competent authority determining compensation has been interfered with. He would secondly, submit that appointment of Additional Commissioner as Arbitrator arises justifiable doubt as to his independence and impartiality as he is an employee of the Central Government serving being a member of Indian Administrative Service and he being an employee of the Central Government, whose services are governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, is disqualified by virtue of clause 1 of the Seventh Schedule enacted under Sec. 12 (5) of the Act of 1996, as such he is ineligible to perform the duties of Arbitrator. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.