SUSHIL KUMAR PRAJAPATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prem Chand Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Embittered with ex-parte arbitral award dtd. 21/5/2025 passed by Sole Arbitrator/CMM/Electrical, Eastern Railway the then Dy. CMM/HQ/NCR/ALD, instant writ proceedings have been instituted precisely on the ground that the sole arbitrator after his transfer from Allahabad to Railway Board as Director R.S.(F.), resumed the proceedings at Kolkata while process for change of arbitrator was going on owing to his transfer. Further ground of challenge is resuming arbitral proceedings by changing seat of arbitration and passing an ex-parte award, without consent of the petitioner-claimant is ex-facie bad.

(3.) At the threshold, learned counsel for the respondents vehementally objected to the maintainability of the present petition asserting that in view of the availability efficacious alternative remedy by virtue of Sec. 34 of the Act of 1996 providing robust statutory mechanism for setting aside the arbitral award, instant writ petition bypassing that fourm is absolutely unwarranted and same is not maintainable. Thus, this Court should refrain from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the writ power is not intended to be a panacea for all substantive procedural issues, nor is it a substitute for statutory remedies, where the legislature has specifically carved out a specialized mechanism. The doors of the Writ Court may remain open subject judicious discretion, otherwise the sanctity of the arbitral process be undermined by such choice of forum at the end of a party. Thus, petitioner having failed to exhaust the statutory channels available to him, the present petition ought to be dismissed in limine on the ground of maintainability.