STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. RITES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. K. Prasad, learned Advocate General appearing for the applicant-State and, Mr. Binod Poddar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent (petitioner in A. A. No. 41 of 2007).

(2.) The instant application has been filed by the applicant purported to be under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, making a prayer for change of the Arbitrator appointed by this Court by order dated 26-7- 2008 passed in Arbitration Application No. 41 of 2007. By the said order, with the consent of the parties, a retired Judge of this Court, Justice S. Roy, was appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arose between the parties. The contention of the applicant-State is that in course of argument of the arbitration application, names of two retired Hon'ble Judges, namely Justice S. Roy and Justice S. K. Chattopadhyay, were suggested. Unfortunately, the arguing counsel of the respondent-State did not have time to consult the respondent-State and the concerned department and without consulting the concerned department, counsel for the State consented for the appointment of Justice S. Roy, retired Judge of this Court as an arbitrator. According to the applicant, appointment of Justice S. Roy is not with the consent of the parties. The applicant-State further contended in the supplementary affidavit that the dispute being highly technical, only a technical person should be appointed. According to the applicant, such highly technical matter cannot be properly appreciated by a person other than a technical person. Several other allegations and insinuations have been made against the arbitrator.

(3.) The petitioner opposed the application by filing counter-affidavit stating inter alia that such application is not maintainable. It is contended that once the parties had agreed to the appointment of an arbitrator, they cannot challenge the same on the basis of some baseless apprehension. The name of the arbitrator was duly agreed upon by the applicant-State of Jharkhand and therefore, they cannot say that they did not accord consent for the said name further, there is no condition in that contract for appointment of technical expert as an arbitrator.