SRI BINAYAK SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all the aforesaid writ petitions involve similar questions of fact and common question of law, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, it would suffice to state that the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions were awarded with contract works on acceptance of their tenders invited by the State. They entered into agreements for the said contract works. In the respective agreement there was a clause with regard to reference of any dispute to any arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act'). By an amendment made by the State of Orissa, the said Arbitration Clause in the agreements stood amended to the effect that in case of any dispute arising between the parties, the same would be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal, Orissa. All the petitioners, in view of the dispute having arisen between the petitioners and the Government filed separate suits under Section 20 of the Act. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack decreed the said suits in accordance with Section 20 of the Act by referring the disputes to the Arbitration Tribunal, Orissa. According to the petitioners, when the matters were proceeding before the said Tribunal and the arbitration proceedings were nearing completion, the Tribunal passed an order directing the petitioners to deposit the security money as per Rule 13(1) of the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, directing the petitioners to deposit the security money before it, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for appropriate relief.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions submit that the Rules that have been framed by the Government, have not been assented by the Governor and, as such, it has no statutory force. Learned counsel draws support for the above contention, from a decision of the Apex Court rendered in a batch of Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions in the case of P.B. Kanungo v. State of Orissa and Others and other parties. On going through the above decision, the copy of which is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us, we find that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the said case before the Supreme Court, it was clearly stated as follows :