V.K.GUPTA.C.J. - (1.) IN this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia for the issuance of an appropriate writ. direction or order holding that Sub -section (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 (impugned provisions for short) are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in that, the Arbitrator becomes a Judge of his own cause and has been vested with unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary powers and that there is no provision whereby any remedy has been given to an aggrieved party with respect to an adverse order passed by the Arbitrator under the aforesaid impugned provisions. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing the order dated 2.5.2001 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, respondent No. 3, whereby he has rejected the challenge as put forth by the petitioner against his appointment and continuing as the Sole Arbitrator and decided to continue with the proceedings in terms of Sub -section (4) of Section 13 of the Act.
(2.) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submission only to the first prayer and did not submit any argument or made any submission with respect to the second prayer. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner, a partnership firm, took up the work of design, construction and commissioning of 55 LPS water supply scheme on turn key basis at Bachara Township near Railway Station Ray, in the district of Hazaribagh, vide agreement dated 21.12.1991. The petitioner says that it duly completed the aforesaid contract work and was refunded 50% of the security deposit after handing over of the site and issuance of the completion certificate to the alleged satisfaction of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner complains that the balance security deposit as also the final bill along with interest and other claims as raised by the petitioner having not been paid to it. the petitioner requested that the disputes between the parties be referred to the arbitration of a Sole Arbitrator as per Clause 56 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Agreement between the parties and in pursuance of the aforesaid request of the petitioner, Respondent No. 3. who is a former Director (Technical) of Central Coal fields Ltd. was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator by the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi. The aforesaid appointment took place in June. 1999. It is the undisputed case of the parties that thereafter the arbitration proceedings commenced but have not been concluded so far. The Arbitrator has so far admittedly not passed his award.
(3.) THE petitioner complains that the delay in the completion of arbitration proceedings is owing to the acts of omission and commission on the part of the Arbitrator. The petitioner also alleges that the Arbitrator being an ex -official of the respondent -company is biased and has been deliberately delaying the proceedings.;