D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the Director of Industries, Punjab, and is directed against the order of the Court below refusing to make the award a rule of the Court. The respondent purchased an industrial plot in Bahadurgarh, district Rohtak. The sale deed was approved by the Director of Industries and the relevant clauses in the sale deed are clauses 5, 6, 15 and 16. They are reproduced below: 5. The purchaser shall within six months from the date of allotment of plot or within "three months of the date of execution of this deed, whichever is later, start construction of the factory/residential building on the said site the plans of which shall be got approved from the Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Buildings and Roads Branch, concerned within three months of the date of deposit of earnest money. 6. The purchaser shall have to complete construction of factory/ workshop on the said site, the plans of which shall be in accordance with the bye -laws made by the vendor and approved by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department of the Division in which the site is situate within five years of the date of the sanction of the sale and in case the site or a part of the site, has not been utilised for the purpose for which it was originally conveyed, this site or a part of the site that remains un -utilised shall be liable to be resumed by the vendor on refund (without any interest or compensation) of the price proportionate to the area resumed less earnest money and the proportionate cost of electric mains development charges which shall be considered as forfeited to the vendor. The Director of Industries, Punjab, shall be the sole judge as regards the extent of the area of the site that has remained un -utilised and the proportionate cost of electric mains and development charges. 15. In the event of non -payment of amount on the due date or the breach or non -observance by the purchaser of any of the covenants herein on his part to be observed, then, and in any case, it shall be lawful for the Director of Industries, Punjab, notwithstanding the waiver of any previous cause or right for re -entry to enter into and upon the said site or building thereon or any part thereof and to repossess, retain and enjoy the same as of his former estate, and the purchaser shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever on account of such resumption except a refund without interest of the purchaser money less earnest money which shall be considered as forfeited to the vendor. 16. In the event of any dispute or difference at any time arising between the vendor and the purchaser as to the true intent and meaning of these presents and of each and every provision thereof the property and rights hereby reserved or any of them or in any manner incidental or relating thereto, the said dispute or difference shall be referred to the Director of Industries, Punjab, acting as such at the time of reference whose decision thereon shall be final and binding on the parties thereto. It is also provided in the deed of conveyance at the end that the expression 'vendor' used in these presents shall include in addition to the Governor of the Punjab, the Government of Punjab and in relation to any matter or anything contained in or arising out of these presents every person duly authorised to act or to represent the Government of Punjab in respect of such matter or thing.
(2.) THE District Industries Officer was of the view that the terms of the deed had been breached by the vendee and he, therefore, resumed the plot and fixed a date for its reauction. On this the vendee moved the Director of Industries by a petition dated the 13th August, 1959. The relevant clauses in the petition are clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8. These clauses are reproduced below: 5. That according to the terms and condition No. 15, the dispute or difference was to be referred to your honour (Director of Industries, of Punjab) and then that decision would have been final and binding on the parties. 6. As there was difference of opinion regarding the construction and completion of the factory on the said plot, no such reference to arbitration was made to your honour by the District Industries Officer Rohtak so he was not competent and authorised to resume the plot and confiscate the building factory already constructed and confiscate the earnest money. 7. The action of the District Industries Officer, Rohtak, in resuming the said plot and confiscating the building and forfeiting the earnest money is mala fide, illegal, ultra vires and oppressive as the petitioner has not committed any breach of the terms of the Sale deed and is thus liable to be set aside. 8. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the dispute referred to above be settled between the parties and an enquiry be made whether any factory has been built and completed on the plot. The District Industries Officer, Rohtak, be instructed not to put to auction the plot as well as the factory and to resume the same till the disposal of this petition, and further proceedings be stayed in the matter till the disposal of the above enquiry. I have got a documentary proof with me that the factory was constructed within the time allowed. In view of this petition, the matter was referred to the Director of Industries who at that time was Mr. J. N. Thandani. The parties appeared before him and led evidence and he gave his award on the 3rd November, 1959. The award is not on a stamped paper and, is also not registered. No application was made by any of the parties to make the award a rule of the Court. Such application can only be made within 90 days of service of notice making the award under Article 178 of the Indian Limitation Act. This notice was served on the parties on the date when the award was announced because both of them were present at that time. The successor -in -office of Mr. Thandani, Mr. R. S. Talwar directed the District Attorney to apply for making the award the rule of the Court. The application is not signed by him nor is there any power -of -attorney executed by him in favour of the District Attorney. When the notice of the application was issued to the respondent, they raised a large number of objections. It is only necessary to notice the objections which have been agitated in appeal. They are - 1. that the application was not filed by an authorised person; 2. that there was no reference to arbitration; and That there was no award. All these three objections were found against the State of Punjab with the result That the application was rejected. Against this decision, the present appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab, as already stated. 3. So far as the first objection is concerned, the learned counsel for the State has not been able to show That the decision of the Court below is erroneous. The arbitrator was Mr. Thandani. His successor -in -office could not be deemed to be an arbitrator. There is no direction by Mr. Thandani to any attorney on his behalf to file the award in Court. It is no doubt true That when the arbitrator files an award in Court, no limitation is provided for but then it is the arbitrator who has to file the award in Court or his duly authorised agent, In this case, the award was not filed by the arbitrator or his duly authorised agent. Mr. Talwar cannot be said to be an arbitrator merely because he is successor -in -office of Mr. Thandani. The arbitration was concluded by Mr. Thandani and I cannot see how there can be two arbitrators in the same reference. The authority of the arbitrator does not exhaust itself unless he is removed by Court or resigns or he has completed the arbitration proceedings. That being so, no fault can be found with the order of the Court below holding That the application before it for filing the award was not by an authorised person.
(3.) SO far as the second objection is concerned, the decision thereon seems to be unfounded. If a reference is made to the application made to the Director of Industries on the 13th August, 1959 by the respondent no manner of doubt is left as to what was the dispute between the parties and that the same was referred to the Director. Therefore, the decision on the second question cannot be sustained and it must be set aside.;