SAR AGENCIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was awarded the contract for construction of Deficient Married Accommodation at Air Force Station, Bhisiana (Bathinda), in 2004. The contract inter -se the parties contained an arbitration clause and disputes having arisen inter -se the parties, the matter was referred for arbitration to Shri S.S. Bansal, on the first Arbitrator appointed having resigned. Shri Bansal made an interim award and, thereafter, made the final award on 7.12.2013. In terms of this award, various claims were adjudicated. However, qua claim No. 1, on account of reimbursement of abnormal hike in steel and steel product rates, after recording the contentions of the respective parties, it was observed that no final order had been passed by the designated authority and, thus, he could not decide claim No. 1 in a comprehensive manner. The award was directed to be placed along with the material before the Engineer -in -Chief, who was the designated authority, to obtain his speaking order and to convey the same to the contractor under Registered post, so as to reach him within three months of the date of the publication of the award. In case, the contractor was not satisfied with the order of the designated authority, he would be at liberty to approach the appointing authority afresh, to seek appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in a comprehensive and conclusive manner.

(2.) THE present petition was filed on 6.3.2014 and came up before the Court, for the first time, on 14.3.2014. Till then, the designated authority had not taken decision and the stipulated period of three months had expired. Notice was issued in the petition, which was accepted and three weeks' time was granted to file a reply.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that after filing of the petition, the petitioner has received a letter dated 10.3.2014 (posted on 13.3.2014 and received by the petitioner on 14.3.2014) informing the decision of the Engineer -in -Chief that the directions of the Arbitrator against claim No. 1 were beyond the contractual provision and that he could not decide the issue of reimbursement of abnormal increase in prices of steel and steel products.