Late Shri S.N. Sharma v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1203 of 2019 • M/s S.K.Sharma Through Sole Proprietor, Suresh Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Shri S.N. Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, R/o B-17, Vijayapuram Colony, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Managing Director, CSPDCL, Daganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Supreintending Engineer(Civil) Tifra, CSPDCL Bilaspur (Civil Distribution), Tifra, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents : : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal and Ms. Mahi Pandey, Advocates Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21/01/2025

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities, especially respondent no. 2, to decide the pending arbitration case within stipulated time interval in the interest of justice.

10.2 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that earlier an award was passed against the petitioner on 2

03.03.2015 and same was challenged by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Bilaspur which was allowed vide order dated

29.11.2017. He would submit that the matter was remitted back to the Arbitrator i.e. Superintending Engineer (Civil) vide order dated

29.11.2017. He would further submit that the petitioner appeared on

15.12.2017 before the Arbitrator. He would contend that till date decision has not been taken by the Arbitrator. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding at the earliest.

On the other hand, Mr. K.R. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by Dr. Sudeep Agrawal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

Taking into consideration the fadct that the lis is pending between the parties since 2015 and we are in year 2025 and arbitration proceeding is pending for more than 10 years, therefore, the Arbitrator i.e. respondent No. 2 is directed to conclude the arbitration proceeding preferably within period of 90 days from the date of reciept of copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge