STATE Vs. DANDASI SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party-contractor was entrusted with the work 'construction of distribution system of Ramguda M. I. P. in Kakudakhandi Block' as per agreement No. 4 F-2 of 1973-74, executed between him and the Executive Engineer (petitioner No. 3), Minor Irrigation Division, Berhampur, Ganjara District, on behalf of the Government of Orissa. As dispute arose between the parties, the Chief Engineer (petitioner No. 2) appointed Shri A. N. Nanda, Superintending Engineer, as Arbitrator. THE opposite party filed M. J. C. No. 211/80 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, Under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act for revolting the authority of Shri Nanda and to appoint another Arbitrator. THE Subordinate Judge by his order dated 17-31981 revoked the authority of Shri Nanda and directed both parties to furnish list of names to be appointed as Arbitrators. Both parties submitted their lists of names and the Suborinate Judge by his order dated 16-4-1981 appointed Shri Dhaneswar Patra, Superintending Engineer, as Arbitrator in place of Shri Nanda. THEreafter the opposite party filed M. J. C. No. 115/81' for review of the order dated 16-4-1981 appointing Shri Dhaneswar Patra as Arbitrator alleging that Shri Patra was concerned with the work previously and was ill-disposed towards him. THE Subordinate Judge reviewed his earlier order and by his order dated 29-8-1981 revoked the authority of Shri Patra and in his place appointed Shri Banabasi Patnaik, Superintending Engineer, as Arbitrator. Against the aforesaid order, the State Government (petitioner No. 1) and the two officers - the Chief Engineer (petitioner No. 2) and the Executive Engineer (petitioner No. 3) -- have come up in revision.

(2.) THE grounds on which the order dated 29-8-1981' is challenged are as follows :- That the Subordinate Judge acted illegally in reviewing the order dated 16-4-1981 appointing Shri Patra as Arbitrator; that Shri Patra was selected as Arbitrator from among the names sub-milted by the parties and if there was any allegation against him, the opposite party could have pointed out the same to the learned. Subordinate Judge at the stage when his name was submitted; that the plea of the opposite party that Shri Patra was concerned with the work and was ill disposed towards him is nothing but an afterthought; and that it was not a fit case for review. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that on 164-1981 a panel of names was submitted by the petitioners and the opposite party also submitted a panel of names. THE opposite party had no occasion to know as to the names mentioned in the list submitted by the petitioners. Having come to know that Dhaneswar Patra has been appointed as Arbitrator, on the next day, i.e. 17-4-1981, the opposite party filed the review petition on the grounds that Dhaneswar Patra was concerned with the work previously and it would be prejudicial to the interests of the opposite party if Dhaneswar Patra was appointed as Arbitrator. It is also submitted that in paragraph 3 (grounds) of the revision petition, the petitioners have admitted that Dhaneswar Patra was appointed as the Superintending Engineer of the circle while the work was in progress.