STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SH HIMAT SINGH CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the orders dated 24-1-1989 and 22-2-1989 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh by which it was held that there were sufficient grounds for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Court. It was found in the impugned order that there was non compliance of Section 8 (2) of the Arbitration Act. The explanation coming from the Chief Engineer that he was over-burdened with work and could not appoint the Arbitrator with in a period of 15 days has rightly been rejected and it has rightly been found as a fact that sufficient grounds existed for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Court itself. The revision petition against the impugned order was filed on 3-7-1989 and by that time, in pursuance of the impugned order passed on 24-1 1989, the Sub Judge 1st Class on 22-2 1989 appointed Adarsh Kumar, retired Chief Engineer, Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula, as an Arbitrator. Not only the Arbitrator has entered upon the reference before the filing of the revision petition but also 1 have been told during the course of arguments that all the proceedings tame to an end on 24-6-1989 i. e. before the filing of the revision petition. An affidavit to this effect was filed by Girdhari Lal, the special attorney of the respondent, which has not been controverted by way of filing another affidavit on behalf of the petitioner. The only thing which has now to be done by the Arbitrator is to give the award.

(2.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties and after giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, 1 am of the view that no case for interference is made out in the revision petition. In spite of the forceful argument of Mr. Madan Dev, the learned counsel appearing for the State, to the effect that the Chief Engineer could not appoint the Arbitrator within fifteen days in view of his busyness with the official work, I am unable to hold that the Chief Engineer could not possibly appoint the Arbitrator within the prescribed period. It has rightly been found that the provisions of Section 8 are mandatory in nature and are required to be complied with by the Engineer in Chief within the period prescribed by law Until and unless minute details have been given by the Chief Engineer, the explanation coming forth to the effect that he was over-burdened and had to depend upon the working of his officials cannot be considered sufficient in law.