NARENDRA NATH PANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition has been filed for reviewing the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Honble Chief Justice in exercise of His Lordships power under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called "ABC"). The Honble Chief Justice, after considering the facts of the case, was pleased to hold that since no arbitration clause exists between the parties it is not possible for His Lordship to exercise power under Section 11 of ABC to appoint an Arbitrator.

(2.) WHEN arguments commenced in this matter it appeared to me that an application for review of an order passed by the Honble Chief Justice under Section 11 of ABC is prima facie not maintainable. As such, before considering the matter on merits, the application was heard fully on the question of maintainability. In this matter the Court while hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners also appointed Mr. R.K.Rath, learned Senior Counsel of this Court to assist the Court as an amicus curiae and Mr. Rath has ably argued and admirably assisted the Court.

(3.) IN Patel Engineering the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of seven learned Judges dealt in detail with various aspects of Section 11 including its several sub -sections. According to the majority view of the said Constitution Bench, the power exercised by the Chief Justice of a High Court under Section 11(6) of ABC is not an administrative power but it is a judicial power. In the course of reaching the aforesaid finding, Honble Justice P.K.Balasubramanyan speaking for the majority held that Sub -section (7) of Section 11 of ABC gives a finality to the decision taken by the Honble Chief Justice or any Judge designated by the Chief Justice in respect of matters falling under Sub -sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 11. The learned Judge held that this finality is one of the aspects which makes the power a judicial power. (See para 8 at page 460).