- (1.) This order will dispose of a bunch of 9 appeals* as common questions of law and facts are involved in the present and the connected appeals. They have been heard together. The facts are taken from FAO No.291 of 2013 for convenience.
(2.) The only two issues raised in the appeal are that one; the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to enter upon the arbitration proceedings. Thisargument is, however, rejected in view of the order passed by brother Ahluwalia, J. in CWP No.13548 of 2007; Virender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others and 7 connected writ petitions decided on 14.7.2010. In the order, it was noticed by this Court that in the agreement executed between the parties, there was a provision that the Deputy Commissioner would be the sole arbitrator in case disputes and differences arose between the parties. However, the Deputy Commissioner had submitted a report before the Court and had taken a definite stand suggesting to the Court that the arbitration disputes be referred to some independent person, preferably a retired Judge of this Court, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
(3.) This statement was accepted by my brother and accordingly Justice K.C.Gupta, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes. Therefore, it does not lie in the Municipal Council, Thanesar to dispute the appointment of the arbitrator and so also the scope of reference since the disputes between the parties had been delineated by this court and thereafter, by me while deciding CWP No.20554 of 2010, Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana & others on 12.3.2012 in a separate set of writ petitions involving the same issue. In the matter before me, the petitioner had made a prayer for intervention in the pending arbitration proceedings so that his case could also be considered on merits in the line of the disputes raised which were subject matter in Virender Kumar and connected cases. In the subsequent writ petition, I had issued several directions which read : - i). The petitioner would have the benefit of the same directions as those contained in the arbitration award. ii). The allotment to the petitioner would remain subject to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 and its outcome. iii). The petitioner would have a right to be heard in Section 34 proceedings as intervener and would claim only such rights as not beyond rights claimed by the respondent allottees in the proceedings before the District Judge/Addl. District Judge, Kurushetra. iv). The claim of the petitioner would be restricted to only such rights as were claimed by the petitioners in CWP No. 13548 of 2008 titled Virender Kumar v. State of Haryana & others and connected matters. v). The petitioner would make an intervener application in Section 34 proceedings together with the copy of this order. The learned District Judge/Addl. District Judge would allow that application and permit the petitioner to participate in those proceedings. vi). The impugned letters/ notices (Annexures P-7 & P-10) would stand quashed.;