NEPAL CHANDRA PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Department of Power, Government of Tripura, drew high tension electrical line over the land of the petitioner, namely, Nepal Chandra Paul, at village Shanttnagar (Madhyam), West Tripura district, thereby debarring the petitioner from making use of his land. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the Department of Power seeking compensation in terms of Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1910'). As the request for compensation, so made, Jailed, the petitioner came before this. Court with a writ application, which gave rise to Writ Petition (Civil) No. 588 of 1999. By judgment and order, dated 7 -8 -2000, the said writ application was disposed of directing the respondent No. 2, namely, Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Power, to refer the matter to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19 and 52 of the Act of 1910. This is clearly reflected from the operative part of the said Judgment and order, which runs as follows : 'For the reasons stated above, I dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner will file an, application along with a certified copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition including its annexures before the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Power, and within one month from the date of receipt of the said documents from the petitioner, the said Secretary will refer the matter for arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19 and 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.'

(2.) AS per the directions contained in the judgment and order, dated 7 -8 -2000 aforementioned, the petitioner made an application along with the relevant documents to the respondent No. 2 for appointment of Arbitrator. The Chief Engineer (Electrical), Tripura, vide order, dated 22 -9 -2000, appointed one Sri R. K. Roy Barman, Superintending Engineer (Elec.), Planning, Department of Power as sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute purportedly in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. As the appointment of the Arbitrator ought to have been in terms of the provisions of Sec. 19 read with Section 52 of the Act of 1910, the order, dated 22 -9 -2000 aforementioned, was cancelled by the Chief Engineer (Electrical) by issuing Memorandum, dated 19 -10 -2000. In the meanwhile, however, Sri R. K. Roy Barman, the sole Arbitrator, issued a notice to the petitioner, on 30 -9 -2000, purportedly entering into the proceeding as the sole Arbitrator. As the proceeding was not permissible under law, the petitioner addressed a letter, on 16 -10 -2000, to the sole Arbitrator with a copy of the same to the Chief Engineer (Electrical) stating to the effect that said R. K. Roy Barman was not competent to act as the sole Arbitrator, for, Section 52 of the Act 1910 provides that the dispute shall be referred to two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party. As no further appointment has been made by the respondent No. 2 in terms of the order passed by this Court, on 7 -8 -2000, and the appointment of the arbitrators cannot be made in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2003, the present Misc. Application has been made by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to act strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment and order, dated 7 -8 -2000, passed in W.P. (C) No. 588 of 1999.

(3.) I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, assisted by Mrs. S. Roy, and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State -respondents, assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh.