HARYANA TELECOME LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner filed this petition under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), inter alia, alleging that it is engaged in the manufacture of Polythene Insulated Jelly Filled telephone cables. Pursuant to tender No. 14-21/94-MMT (MMS) dated 30th November 1994 for procurement of 352 LCKM underground cables in various sizes and types floated by the respondents the petitioner submitted bid(s) which was accepted by respondents. As per terms' of contract the petitioner was entitled to a minimum order to the extent of 20% of the tender quantity. Tender Evaluation Committee evaluated the tender differently and finalised the allocation of order to petitioner to the extent of 27.60 LCKM leaving a shortfall of 8.4 LCKM. Further, the respondent withheld releasing 1.04 LCKM out of purchase order of 22.34 LCKM again leaving shortfall of 1.04 (2000) 8 SCC 151 Haryana Telecom Ltd. v. Union of India LCKM making the total shortfall of 14.7 LCKM. It is alleged that the action of respondents in not placing purchase order for the balance quantity was wholly mala fide. So, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1200/97 in this Court but in view of arbitration clause appearing in tender documents the same was disposed of by the order dated 17th February 2000 with direction to the respondents that as and when the petitioner invokes arbitration clause, an arbitrator would be appointed. Vide letter dated 26th February 2000 sent through lawyer the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. By the letter dated 25th April 2000 the respondents conveyed the appointment of K.L Jain. G.M. (Development), Haryana Telecom Circle as arbitrator to decide the disputes. Vide letter of May 2000 the respondents informed the petitioner that since K.L. Jain has expressed his unwillingness to act as arbitrator, Ram Kumar, G.M. (A & P) UP (W) Telecom circle, Dehra Dun has been appointed in his place. Vide letter dated 27th June 2000 this arbitrator asked the petitioner to file claims which the petitioner submitted on 27th October 2000. As the said arbitrator did not held even a single hearing after the filing of claims, the petitioner vide letter dated 14th February 2001 requested him to proceed in the matter. It appears that said arbitrator was not interested to continue as arbitrator. So, vide letter dated 23rd March 2001 the petitioner requested Director General, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi, to appoint another person to act as arbitrator. Despite receipt of above letter the said Authority has failed to appoint another arbitrator. It was prayed that an independent arbitrator preferably a retired Judge of this Court may be appointed as arbitrator to decide the disputes.

(2.) . In the short reply filed on the affidavit of R.N. Bhagat, Assistant Director General (ST) it is stated that a decision has been taken on 4th October 2001 to appoint R.K. Tyagi, G.M. (Dev), Haryana Telecom circle in place of Ram Kumar as arbitrator and the petition has, thus, been rendered infructuous.

(3.) . In the rejoinder filed to reply on the affidavit of P.K. Sharma, Dy. Manager (Legal) of petitioner, it is stated that petitioner is not agreeable to the appointment of R.K. Tyagi as arbitrator as he has been monitoring OMP No. 251/01 filed by the Department against petitioner company challenging the award dated 7th August 2000 made by Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd).