UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LTD Vs. G KUPPUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Dir.TX II/ARB/8554282/2000-2001 dated 22.9.2000 and quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner is a telephone subscriber. The dispute arose between the petitioner and the telephone Department and that dispute has been referred to the arbitrator as per Section 7 B of the Indian Telegraphic Act. While the first respondent was appointed as the arbitrator. It is stated in the affidavit interalia that on the oral hearing on 22.9.2000, the telegraph authority was represented by the third respondent who is the Sub-Divisional Engineer(Legal Cell (Central). While hearing was held in the Chamber of the 1st respondent, apart from the 1st respondent/arbitrator, the petitioner's counsel and the 3rd respondent, another person who stated that he was also a Sub-Divisional Engineer of Chennai Telephones and working in the office of the 1st respondent was also present. When the petitioner's counsel was advancing his arguments on the point of jurisdiction, the said Sub-Divisional Engineer working in the office of the 1st respondent arbitrator intervened and began to state that such jurisdiction questions cannot be raised and the 1st respondent had the authority to entertain the dispute. The petitioner's counsel represented to the 1st respondent/arbitrator that such an intervention by a person neither authorised to represent the Telegraph Authority nor party to the dispute should not be permitted. The 1st respondent then stated that the said person is only an Officer employed in his Office and his intervention may be ignored and further assured that in future such intervention would not be made by the said person. Despite this, the 1st respondent/Arbitrator did not do anything to control the said person's further intervention during the course of the arguments by the petitioner's counsel and the 3rd respondent. The said Sub-Divisional Engineer, in the office of the 1st respondent/Arbitrator continued to intervene and exercise his authority and influence over the 1st respondent arbitrator. The counsel for the petitioner relying upon this averment in the affidavit submitted that the arbitrator has no control over the proceedings of the Arbitration Act and therefore, it is bias against the petitioner. The petitioner's prayer is that they are ready to go on with the arbitration proceedings, if the arbitrator is changed. They have no objection for appointing any other person from the department as arbitrator.

(3.) No counter has been filed by the first respondent. The third respondent has filed counter denying the averments made by the petitioner.