Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) This writ petition is made challenging the statutory award passed by this statutory Arbitrator in respect of determination of dispute about the then telephone no. 264590 between Paramanand Churiwal and Telegraph Authority. The matter was referred before the Arbitrator under an order of the court. The jurisdiction of the arbitrator was invoked under Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The contention of the writ petitioner in the statutory arbitration is amenable under the writ jurisdiction irrespective of having any alternative remedy because an administrator was directed to discharge quasi -judicial action. It has been further contended before this court that Sec. 7B ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It appears from Sec. 7B(2) that the award of the arbitrator appointed under sub Sec. 1 shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court Mr. Samit Talukdar. Learned Counsel appearing in favour of the petitioner contended before this court that the award given by the Arbitrator is not a reasoned award. The authority concerned is bound to pass a reasoned order unlike the award passed in private arbitration under Arbitration Act, 1940 or Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where an Arbitrator may or may not pass any award with reasons. Since it is a statutory arbitration, it is as good as a departmental order passed by administrator in connection with the quasi -judicial proceedings which has to be reflected with reasons. The power, if entrusted by the court to an authority to perform quasi judicial function, the same cannot be equated with the above acts.
(2.) By citing a judgment reported in : AIR 1976 SC 1785 (Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Anr.) Learned Counsel appearing in support of the petitioner contended that it is now well -settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of quasi -judicial function, it must record the reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi -judicial order must be supported by reasons. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi -judicial process and the rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law.
(3.) He has also cited a judgment reported in : 1998(8) SCC 237 (Appropriate Authority & Anr. vs. Sudha Patil (Smt.) & Anr.) and wanted to establish before this court that power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being supervisory in nature, in exercise of such power the finding/conclusion of an inferior tribunal can be interfered with if the High Court finds that in arriving at the conclusion, the tribunal has failed to consider some relevant materials or has considered some extraneous and irrelevant materials or that the finding is based on no evidence or the finding is such that no reasonable man could come to such a conclusion on the basis of which the finding has been arrived at. Therefore, unless and until reason exists it is practically impossible for the court to come to a definite finding in this respect.;