Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Request Case No.17 of 2012 ====================================================== 1.M/S Amar Jyoti Carriers Pvt. Ltd. through it’s Director Amar Nath Pandey, son of late Raghuanth Pandey, resident of Uma market, P.S.Gumti Motijheel, District - Muzaffarpur-842001. 2.Amar Nath Pandey, son of late Raghuanth Pandey, resident of Uma market, P.S.Gumti Motijheel, District- Muzaffarpur-842001. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1.The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation , Pariwahan Bhawan, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna-900001. 2.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar, Patna-cum- The sole Arbitrator under clause 36 of the Agreement. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Corporation : Mr. N.K.P.Sinha For the State : Mr. P.K.Verma,A.A.G.-5 Dr. Mankeshwar Jiwan,A.C to A.A.G-5. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 23-08-2013 This request case was filed on 18.12.2012 for referring the dispute as between the petitioner and the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation to an independent arbitrator as in spite of notice in terms of Clause 36 of the Agreement, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation or for that matter the Transport Secretary of the Department who is the named the arbitrator did not enter reference within a period of one month. Notices were issued to all the parties. State and the Secretary have also appeared. From the facts as apparent from the pleadings it is clear
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.17 of 2012 (6) dt.23-08-2013 2 that on 1.10.2012 the petitioner sent a notice to the Transport Secretary, who is also the Principal Secretary of the Department of Transport and also the Commissioner for taking up arbitral proceedings. The same was received by the Transport Secretary on 8.10.2012. On 19.10.2012 the Transport Secretary wrote to the Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation informing the Corporation that he had received notice for arbitration from the petitioner. This notice was not immediately responded to by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. In the meantime on 18.12.2012 having not received response either from the Arbitrator or from the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation this request case was filed. In this request case on 8.2.2013 notices were directed to be issued to all the parties by this Court. On 11.2.2013 the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation then appeared before the Arbitrator. Accordingly on 13.2.2013, the Arbitrator issued notices to both the parties. It is the case of the Transport Secretary that thereafter in spite of information to the petitioner, he is not appearing.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the Arbitrator had failed to act and the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation also failed to respond, this request case had been filed and accordingly the matter being Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.17 of 2012 (6) dt.23-08-2013 3 sub-judice here, the petitioner chose not to appear before the Arbitrator till this Court decides the matter as a prayer has been made before this Court to appoint an independent Arbitrator. Having heard the parties, in my view. though the Arbitrator i.e. the Transport Secretary has not acted with promptitude as was expected from him as an Arbitrator rather he acted in bureaucratic manner having sent notice to Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and then had forgotten the matter for next four months but when it came to noticing the petitioner he was prompt to ring up the petitioner on his mobile. It must be remembered that when an officer of the State is designated as an Arbitrator and once he assumes the jurisdiction, he must dissociate himself of any act which can be said to show his bias. He has to act impartially otherwise the confidence of the people in such arbitral matter is totally shaken. We are already witnessing the economic situation where the people’s confidence being eroded in writ large.This is most undesirable. However, as the named arbitrator immediately upon receipt of notice from the petitioner sent notice to Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, in law it will be assumed that he had enter reference. That being so, there is no delay in entering reference. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation on its own does Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.17 of 2012 (6) dt.23-08-2013 4 not even choose to give any explanation as to why they slept over the matter for over four months. Thus, I am of the view that the named Arbitrator , as agreed by the parties, under Clause 36 of the Agreement having already entered reference, the matter having been delayed because of pendency of this request case, it is high time that the Arbitrator to take up the matter and proceed. Considering that the parties have now appeared before this Court and have already appeared before the Arbitrator, I direct that both the parties i.e. the petitioner and the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation would appear before the Transport Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, the named Arbitrator as per Clause 36 of the Agreement, on 29.8.2013. On that date the Arbitrator would pass order fixing the next date which should not be ordinarily be more than one week by when the petitioner would file a detailed application on affidavit raising issues to be decided and all relevant facts with all documents in support thereof . He would before hand serve a copy thereof in the office of Administrator of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and produce the receipt thereof on date as fixed before the Arbitrator. On the next date fixed the statements of case already having been filed by the petitioner with issues, the Arbitrator would fix a date not later than one week to give opportunity to Bihar State Road Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.17 of 2012 (6) dt.23-08-2013 5 Transport Corporation to file its rejoinder along with documents on affidavit which they seek to rely on before the next date and file receipt showing service thereof on petitioner on the next date fixed before the Arbitrator. On the next date, as fixed, the Arbitrator would hear the parties and pass an order with regard to the issues that has to be decided and then fixed the matter within a week for evidence, if any, to be recorded and then for final hearing by the parties which all should be done on day to day basis. The parties except for exceptional circumstances would not be allowed to adduce any further document or evidence. Upon conclusion of hearing it is expected that the Arbitrator would give his finding and conclude the proceeding within next three weeks. It must be remembered that this is an arbitral proceeding and not ordinary litigation or departmental proceeding which can go ad infinitum. All parties must abide by the time schedule the duty of enforcing the same shall be on the Arbitrator. The order once passed in writing giving reasons would be immediately communicated to both the parties by the Administrator. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this
Decision
request case is disposed of. singh/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)