STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Director, Haryana State Lotteries calls into question the legality and validity of order, dated 30-4-2005, passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'). By the impugned order, the learned Judge has allowed the application and appointed a retired District and Sessions Judge as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the petitioner and one M/s. Focus Information System Pvt. Ltd. respondent Nb. 2 herein. The District Judge, the Arbitrator and the Finance Secretary, Government of Haryana, have also been impleaded as respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 respectively.

(2.) Briefly stated, the material facts, giving rise to the present petition are as follows : On 3-7-1998, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, whereby the said respondent agreed to become the approved party for computerised facilities management and consultancy, designing, creation, maintenance and continuous change of internet website for Haryana State Lotteries for the period from 3-7-1998 to 2-7-1999. The period was extended by another one year. It appears that some disputes arose between the said parties. Accordingly, invoking clause 37 of the arbitration agreement, respondent No. 2, vide letters dated 4-4-2002 and 28-6-2002, requested respondent No. 4, the persona designata, to adjudicate upon the disputes. Having failed to get any response from the said respondent, within 30 days, the said respondent filed an application under Section 11 of the Act before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh on 23-8-2002, for appointment of an independent Arbitrator, on the plea that respondent No. 4 had forfeited his right to arbitrate in the matter.

(3.) The application was contested by the petitioner. Issues were thus, framed by the Civil Judge and evidence was led by both the parties before him. However, before the application could be disposed of by the Civil Judge, on 17-9-2003 a notification was issued by the Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby in supersession of the earlier scheme, published on 19-12-1996, a fresh scheme under the Act was framed. Paragraph 3 of the said scheme provided that request for appointment of Arbitrator, wherein the value of the subject-matter did not exceed 25 lac rupees shall be dealt with by the District Judge, whereas the request for appointment of Arbitrator involving the subject-matter exceeding 25 lac rupees shall be dealt with by the Chief Justice himself or he may designate any Judge of the High Court for this purpose, by a general or special order.