NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) Theseappeals arise out of the common order dated 24th December, 2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5257 of 2004 and W.P.(C) No. 5292 of 2004 between the same parties. Issues involved in both the appeals are the same and grounded on similar facts. Hence, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) The same writ petitioner is the appellant in both these appeals. Two writ petitions were filed in this Court seeking a writ/ direction commanding upon the Arbitrator- respondent No. 2 not to proceed with the arbitral proceeding arising out of agreements dated 12-3-1986 and for quashing the entire arbitration proceedings(s) on the ground that reference was made to respondent No. 2-arbitrator in contravention of Clauses 51 and 52 of the agreement and the same is barred by limitation and appointment of the respondent No. 2-arbitrator being in violation and contravention of law, he has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration proceedings.
(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the said case is that for execution of the work relating to Galudih Right Bank Main Canal, tenders were invited; the respondent No. 1 submitted the bid which was accepted; and agreement was entered into between the Executive Engineer, Kharkai Link Canal Division and respondent No. 1; and work order was issued in favour of the respondent No. 1. According to the terms of the agreement, the work was to be completed within a period of 24 months from the date of work order, i.e., by 13-3-1988. But, the work could not be completed by respondent No. 1 within the stipulated time. The respondent No. 1 made several requests for extension of time and the same were accepted. When the respondent No. 1 failed to complete the work inspite of several extensions, a decision was taken by the Department to take final measurement of the work done by the first respondent. By letter No. 1299 dated 8-7-2003 the Chief Engineer of the Department closed the agreement. The Department, ultimately, took the final measurement through a committee. It has been stated that the respondent No. 1 was informed about the same repeatedly and even by a press communiques, but no body turned up on behalf of the respondent No. 1 at the time of taking final measurement. The respondent No. 1, after some time submitted a claim in the Office of the Executive Engineer, to the tune of Rs. 1020.176 lakh, invoking Clause 51 of the agreement. According to the appellants, the claim was highly excessive and arbitrary. On receipt of the claim, the Executive Engineer asked the respondent No. 1 to furnish the basis of the said claim which was not submitted and as a result of which the Superintending Engineer had not taken any decision in the matter. On expiry of 60 days from the date of submission of claim, the said respondent No. 2, by his letter dated 1-4- 2004 expressed intention for arbitration and for that purpose requested to furnish a panel of arbitrators. According to the appellant, since the claim of the respondent No. 1 was unrealistic and inflated, the Chief Engineer did not respond to the said request. The respondent No. 1, then, submitted a panel of arbitrators to the Chief Engineer, in which names of three persons were mentioned. The Chief Engineer was requested to select any of the three officers for the purpose of arbitration. The Chief Engineer did not also acceded to the said request. The respondent No. 1, thereupon, appointed respondent No. 2, a retired Chief Engineer (Bihar) as the sole arbitrator by letter dated 4-6-2004, communicating the same to the appellants.;