K K SURESH Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application challenges the order dated 20th June 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem in Special Civil Suit No. 84/94/a. By the impugned order the trial Court has appointed one S. M. Nadkarni, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Colvale as the sole arbitrator to enter the reference pursuant to the dispute referred for arbitration by the trial Court by its order dated 9th September 1996. Before appointing the said Superintending Engineer as the Sole Arbitrator, the trial Court had called and invited the parties to the proceedings to propose the name of the Arbitrator and, accordingly, the petitioner as well as the respondents had submitted three names each. Upon hearing the parties, the trial Court passed the impugned order.

(2.) WHILE assailing the impugned order Shri Mascarenhas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the trial Court had acted with material irregularity in discarding the objection raised on the part of the petitioner to the person appointed as Sole Arbitrator. According to the learned Advocate, the trial Court ought to have considered that the person appointed as Sole Arbitrator is a person serving in the Department of the Government and, therefore, the said appointee would be hesitant to arrive at any decision against the respondents and, therefore, it is but natural for the petitioner to apprehend that there is possibility of bias by the Arbitrator towards the respondents and the apprehension being reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner, the trial Court erred in ignoring the same and appointing the Superintending Engineer as Sole Arbitrator and thereby acting with material irregularity justifying the interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of (Nandyal Co-op Spinning Mills Ltd. v. K. V. Mohan Rao) reported in 1993 (2) S. C. C. 654 the learned advocate submitted that the justice must not only be done but seemingly appear to have been done and, therefore, in view of reasonable apprehension of the petitioner as against bias in favour of the respondents, the trial Court should not have appointed the Superintending Engineer as the Sole Arbitrator. Further drawing my attention to the judgment of the Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of (State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Chelamani Ramalinga Reddy) reported in 1990 (1) Arb. L. R. 287 submitted that a person interested cannot be entrusted with the task of deciding the matter. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of (State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, Thirthahalli) reported in A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1359 and submitted that the interest of justice and equity requires that a person who is a party to a contract cannot be entrusted the task of deciding the issue arising under the contract between the parties. The learned advocate further submitted that the Superintending Engineer cannot be termed as an independent person who can decide the matter without being influenced by the respondents.

(3.) SHRI M. S. Joshi, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the trial Court after considering the objection raised by the petitioner has rightly rejected the same and has appointed the Superintending Engineer for the reasons disclosed in the impugned order. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of (Ranjit Thakur v. Union, of India and others) reported in A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 2386, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there must be reasonable material available on record to justify the alleged bias and without such material by mere allegation on the part of the petitioner it cannot be said that the Superintending Engineer is biased and, therefore, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.