STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BHASKAR BISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Orissa is the petitioner No. 1 in this Civil Revision challenging the order dated 10. 8, 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, appointing opposite party No. 2 as Arbitrator in exercise of the power under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 is a works contractor. He entered into an agreement with the State of Orissa for execution of a work and the agreement was executed between the parties which was signed by the Executive Engineer on behalf of the State of Orissa as required under Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The claim of the opposite party No. 1 not having been settled the opposite party Nr 1 requested the concerned Chief Engineer for appointment of an Arbitrator, as provided under Clause 23 of the agreement. As the Chief Engineer did not appoint an Arbitrator within the period stipulated under the Act, the opposite party No. 1 filed an application under Section, 8 of the Act in Court. By order dated 3. 8. 1982, the Court was satisfied that the conditions for appointment of an Arbitrator were satisfied and accordingly he directed the parties to furnish panel of names by 10. 8. 1982. On 10. 8. 1982 the parties filed their respective panel of names. The Arbitration Tribunal was suggested to be appointed as the Arbitrator by the petitioner No. 1 Opposite party No. 1 suggested four names in the list. Thay were (1) Shri I. C. Misra, retired District Judge, (2) Shri D. C. Padhi, Addl. Chief Engineer (Retired), (3) Shri M. J, Rao, retired District Judge and (4) Shri K. M. Acharya, Superintendent Engineer. Without accepting any of the suggestions by either party and specifically rejecting the scope for appointing the Arbitration Tribunal as the Arbitrator, the learned Subordinate Judge appointed opposite party No. 2 to be the Arbitrator. Opposite party No. 1 has filed the claim statement before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator issued notice to the petitioners to file the objection to the claim. While the proceeding is pending before the Arbitrator, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the appointment of opposite party No. 2 as the Arbitrator and obtained an interim order of stay of the proceeding before the Arbitrator.

(3.) IT is to be remembered that an Arbitrator is a Judge of the choice of the parties. Accordingly, Court should try to confine to the choice given by the parties where the parties do not agree to a particular person to be the Arbitrator. Court should, therefore, give an opportunity to the parties to give their views relating to the names suggested. Thereafter, Court should appoint a person as an Arbitrator. When the Court does not accept any of the names in the panels given and appoints another person of its choice not in the list, reason for the same should be indicated so that the order becomes a speaking order and there is no scope for the order becoming vulnerable on account of arbitrariness. In that short view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on account of material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction.