STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SURENDRANATH KANUNGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as identical questions of fact and law are involved.

(2.) In these two writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the orders dated 20-9-2001 passed by the former Chief Justice of this Court in MJC No. 241 of 2001 and MJC No. 242 of 2001 respectively. By both these orders, which were passed with consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, Shri Jagannath Pattnaik, a Senior Advocate of this Court, was appointed as Arbitrator. These two orders are now under challenge in these two writ petitions respectively filed by the State.

(3.) The case of the petitioner in OJC No. 15281 of 2001 in brief is that the opposite party entered into an agreement with the petitioner for the work "construction of Suhagi M.I.P. Headworks (Earth Dam and Head Sluice) under Narsinghpur Block of Cuttack District" vide Agreement No. 61 F2 of 1983-84 for a contract value of Rs. 1,95,04,908/- with the stipulation that the execution of the work should be commenced with effect from 2-12-1983 and the same should be completed by 31st March, 1985. According to the petitioner, the said agreement did not contain any arbitration clause. The arbitration Clause 23 was scored out at the time of execution of the agreement with signatures of the opposite party at two places acknowledging thereby that the said Clause was scored out. Similarly, the case of the petitioner with regard to OJC No, 15347 of 2001 is that the opposite party entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide Agreement No. 131/F2 of 1981-82 for a contract value of Rs. 91,30,532/- for the work "Construction of Suhagi M.I.P. Headworks (Spill way) in Narsinghpur Block of the Cuttack District" with the stipulation that execution of the said contract work should be commenced with effect from 15-1-1982 and the same would be completed within a period of thirty calendar months. Likewise, it is the further case of the petitioner that there was no clause for arbitration in the said agreement as at the time of execution of the said agreement the Clause 23 thereof which related to arbitration was scored out and in acknowledgment thereof, the opposite party signed at two places against the said clause admitting that the said clause relating to arbitration was scored out at the time of execution of the agreement. In effect thereof, it means that there was no arbitration clause in the agreement in question.