PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT OF AP TRANSPORT ROADS BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD Vs. PPRABHAKAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and two others assail the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, dated 28-2-2000 in Arbitration Application No. 1 of 1998 in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge, as nominee of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as per the Scheme framed and published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part II (Extraordinary), dated 24-7-1996, appointed a retired District Judge as sole arbitrator for the interpretation of the agreement conditions and resolving the disputes raised by the first respondent herein.

(2.) The first respondent was entrusted with the work of construction of high-level bridge across the river Araniar and an agreement was entered into on 21-7-1993. The first respondent was asked to commence the work immediately on 21-7-1993, but he did not commence the work and, therefore, the contract was terminated on 25-5-1996. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred a writ petition being W.P.No. 13176 of 1996, which was dismissed on 21-7-1997. The first respondent, therefore, filed an arbitration application under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') and the same was allowed by judgment dated 28-2-2000. The petitioners herein opposed the application inter alia on the ground that as per the agreement between the petitioners and the first respondent, the dispute has to be placed before a panel of arbitrators appointed. The objections were overruled and arbitrator was appointed.

(3.) The question as to whether a writ petition would lie and a Chief Justice or his nominee can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Act is no more res Integra. The Supreme Court, in Ador Samia Private Limited v. Peekay Holdings Limited*, concluded that an order appointing an arbitrator passed by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him is an administrative order and does not attract the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, on a reference, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Co. (Konkan I), affirmed the view in Ador Samia Private Limited v. Peekay Holdings Limited. But, later a two- Judge Bench in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Konkan II) referred the matter to a Larger Bench for reconsideration of the decision of the three Judge Bench in Konkan Railway-I. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd., (Konkan III) considered the ambit and scope of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act vis-a-vis Article 136 of the Constitution of India and held thus: