H K DHRUVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) H. K. Dhruva, petitioner, party-in-person, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that this Court may be pleased to quash and set aside judgement and order dated 19. 6. 2006 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 109 of 1992 and 150 of 1992 by which the learned Judge has directed the General Manager of railway Administration to appoint Arbitrators to resolve the dispute and differences arose by the Contractor as it was in existence at the time of passing the order by this Court on 31. 3. 1986 and for that letter of panel and finalisation of suggestion of nominee be done on or before 31. 7. 1996. He further pressed that thereafter the arbitration work should be completed within a period of four months latest by 30. 11. 1996. The General Manager is directed not to include any instruction to the Arbitrator regarding the admissibility of any claim or counter-claim but such plea can be raised in written statement before the Arbitrator if find necessary. The petitioner further prayed to allow fully the application of the petitioner in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 150 of 1992 and to appoint Arbitrator of this Court's choice to resolve the dispute. The petition was filed on 29. 12. 2004. When the matter was placed for hearing, this Court issued notice. Thereafter, this Court passed various orders from time to time. Thereafter, this matter was heard partly and though the roster was changed but ultimately in view of the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice the matter was again placed for hearing before this Court and that is why the matter has been heard by this Court finally.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as under:

(3.) AS the Railway General Manager failed and neglected to act as per the aforesaid order dated 28. 12. 1983. Party in persion " petitioner appointed Shri R. K. Malhotra and Shri U. V. Acharya as Joint Arbitrators by letter dated 24. 3. 1984. However, the Railway General Manager did not act faithfully and correctly but on the contrary tried to frustrate the said order in the following aspects.