LAWS(ORI)-2022-10-16

MADHAVI MANGARAJ Vs. PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT

Decided On October 12, 2022
Madhavi Mangaraj Appellant
V/S
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sarangi, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellants. He submits, part of his clients' house was acquired for expansion of National Highway 5. In his clients' writ petition WP(C) no.2246 of 2004, there was order dtd. 15/10/2004, directing fresh measurement to be made by the Assistant Engineer. He submits, the measurement directed was of the entire house, as would be affected by demolition of part thereof. On basis of the fresh measurement, there was assessment. His client being aggrieved by the assessment had claimed enhancement. In the reference, argument was concluded on 25/5/2007. The award was purportedly published on 26/2/2010 but delivered to his clients on 5/8/2010. He submits, the award passed after such long delay is by itself illegal. Without prejudice he submits, the assessed amount at Rs.2,58,648.00 was paid but there ought to have been pendente lite interest granted by the arbitrator, under sec. 31(7)(a) in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Furthermore, there was enhancement by approximately Rs.27,000.00. This was not paid. In the award there ought to also have been direction for payment of interest thereon under both clauses (a) and (b) in sub-sec. (7) of sec. 31.

(2.) On delay in making and publishing the award Mr. Sarangi relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318. He submits, anguish of the Supreme Court was directed at High Courts in India. Guidelines were framed. He submits, they are applicable to the Court below in having kept the matter pending as reserved for passing of award for almost three years assuming, though not admitting the award was published on 26/2/2010. Guideline no.(v) given in paragraph-10 of the judgment is extracted and reproduced below.

(3.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent. He submits, the reference was kept pending on order of stay obtained by petitioner. He refers to paragraph-3 in order dtd. 26/2/2010 made in the reference.