GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY SECBAD Vs. KOTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the General Manager, South Central Railway and 3 others for a mandamus restraining the 2nd respondent herein, who was appointed as Arbitrator in Arbitration Application No.55 of 2001 by order dated 1-10-2001, from functioning as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes by way of arbitration proceedings in respect of Contract Agreement No. 107 DEN/C/BG/SC/92-93 dated 3-8-1992 as his appointment is illegal, contrary to law and void as per Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) We have perused the order passed by J. Chelameswar, J., in AA No.55 of 2001. This order was passed after hearing the Counsel for the Contractor and the learned Counsel for Railways. Since there was an arbitration agreement between the parties, which was also not in dispute, the learned Judge after hearing the Counsel appearing on either side referred the matter to be resolved by the process of arbitration. The learned Judge appointed a former Judge of this Court Sri M.Ranga Reddy, J., as the Arbitrator reserving liberty to him to fix his remuneration. The correctness of this order is questioned in this writ petition.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the order passed by the learned single Judge is contrary to law and void and that the appointment of the 2nd respondent as sole Arbitrator is contrary to the General Conditions of the Contract. It is also argued that the claims of the 1st respondent are inflated, fictitious and untenable and cannot be referable to arbitration. Thus it is submitted that there are no arbitrable disputes existing to refer the same for arbitration and, therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge appointing the 2nd respondent as Arbitrator is non est in law.