- (1.) HEARD Shri A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent CCL. With the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission.
(2.) PRAYER in this writ application, as made by the petitioner, is for quashing the order dated 28th February 2002 (Annexure -20) purported to be an Award passed by the Arbitrator (Respondent No. 4) on the dispute referred to him in respect of the petitioner's claim for money against the respondent CCL. Petitioner's case in brief is that the petitioner being a registered contractor was engaged by the respondent CCL to execute four different works under the contract. The contracts were awarded in between 1976 -1980. In addition to the works specified in the contract, certain additional works were also executed by the petitioner at the instance of the concerned authorities of the respondents. The execution of the works of each of the contracts used to be supervised by the officer deputed by the respondent CCL and the extent of works executed, used to be entered in the Measurement Book by the authorised officer of the respondents. After having completed the works, the petitioner submitted his Bills for payment besides his claim for refund of the security deposit, which were initially obtained from him by the respondents. Payment of the Bills were not finalized in spite of the repeated reminders by the petitioner and it continued to be delayed. Ultimately, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court vide CWJC No. 1897 of 1998 (R). By order dated 17.2.1999, the writ application was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move before the respondent no. 3 stating the details of his claim and enclosing therewith the supporting documents and with the corresponding direction to the respondent authorities to decide the claim by passing a reasoned order, within a period of six months from the date of the representation and in the meantime, to pay the admitted dues, if any, to the petitioner.
(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid direction by this court, the petitioner raised his claim before the respondent no. 3 for payment of the total specified amount. However, the respondent no. 3 raised a dispute as to the amount claimed by the petitioner. In order to resolve the dispute, the respondent no. 2 appointed the respondent no. 4, a retired Executive Officer of the respondent CCL, as the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute regarding the claim in respect of the four works awarded to the petitioner.;