STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION Vs. HARMOHAN PAL SINGH KABALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party, a contractor, had entered into an agreement in F -2 form with the State of Orissa for certain construction work. Some dispute arose between the parties and the contractor on 4 -7 -1979 issued a letter to the Chief Engineer. National Highway Division, Bhubaneswar, invoking Clause 23 of the agreement for appointment of an arbitrator. This letter evidently was issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and so this was the 'written notice' contemplated under the said provision. The Chief Engineer on receiving the said notice on 5 -7 -1979 appointed an arbitrator on 17 -7 -1979 in accordance with the provisions of Clause 23 of the agreement. After making the said appointment a registered letter was posted to the contractor on 18.7 -1979. The fact of posting of the said letter is established by the production of the postal receipt Ext. E. The learned Government Advocate states that the said letter posted on 18 -7 -1979 was received by the opposite party, contractor on 26 -7 -1979, as it appears from the letter of the Sub -Postmaster, Burla, dated 18 -10 -1979. The said letter, of course, has not been proved in accordance with law, and so Mr. Misra appearing for the opposite party states that reliance may not be placed on the said letter.

(2.) THE basis and reasoning on which the Court below appointed the arbitrator in this case are incorrect and illegal. There is nothing in Section 8(1)(a) or in the Act which provides that the appointment of the arbitrator under Section 8(1) must not only be made within 15 days of the receipt of the notice but also should actually be communicated and made known to the other side within that period. Sub -section (2) of Section 8 of the Act is as follows:

(3.) THE Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. No costs.