ASHOK KUMAR CHHABRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 7th December 2006 whereby the learned Arbitrator, out of the three claims raised by claimant (petitioner herein), allowed only one claim of Rs. 1 lac on account of forfeiture of earnest money and awarded interest thereon @ 10% per annum. The petitioner is aggrieved because of rejection of two other claims of petitioner, one on account of loss of profits expected from the contract and other on account of hire charges due to non-operational of plant and machinery i. e. hot mix plaint.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner was having a hot mix plaint in Delhi. He participated in tender invitation issued by respondent for construction of a road. One of the basic conditions of the tender was that the party must have a hotmix plant of its own. The petitioner participated in the tender process in 1997 and was awarded the contract on 21st January 1998.

(3.) BY an order dated 10th October 1996,the Supreme Court had given directions that all 43 hotmix plants functioning in Delhi shall stop functioning with effect from 28th February 1997 and they shall be relocated outside Delhi. In the list of 43 hotmix plants, the hotmix plant of the petitioner was not mentioned due to an omission. The Pollution Control Board, however, served a notice on petitioner on 6th March 1997 to show cause as to why this plant be not closed down immediately as this plant was functioning after 28 th February 1997, the last date given by the Supreme Court. After considering the reply of petitioner, the Pollution Control Board Committee vide order dated 16th May 1997 directed petitioner to stop operating and functioning of hotmix plant forthwith. The matter also came up for hearing before the Supreme Court and the supreme Court vide order dated 5 th December 1997 included the plant of petitioner in its directions dated 10th October 1996. The petitioner thereafter had preferred a writ petition before this Court against the order of sealing the hotmix plant issued by Central Pollution Control Committee. This Court while entertaining the writ petition made it clear that the order of closure passed by Central Pollution Control Committee still stands and its operation has not been stayed neither the order has been set aside.