ROSHAN LAL BUDH PRAKASH SETHI & CO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A contract for extraction of a minor forest produce namely Anardana from the demarcated and un -demarcated forests of Rajouri and Poonch Forest Divisions in lieu of Rs. 40101/ - was granted in favour of the appellants for the year 1966 -67 vide agreement dated 23 -10 -66. Some disputes with regard to this contract having arisen between the parties, an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was made by the appellants for their reference to arbitration. Acceding to the prayer of the appellants a Single Judge of this court his order dated May 1, 1967, referred vide matters in dispute between the parties to the arbitration of the Chief Conservator of Forest in terms of clause 27 of the agreement ail directed the arbitrator to submit his award within the time specified by him. After entering upon the reference and allowing an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, the arbitrator eventually made his award on April 17, 1972.

(2.) ON receipt of the award the parties were allowed an opportunity to file their objections in regard thereto. Availing themselves of their right the appellants filed objections challenging the award mainly on the grounds that they were not allowed an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the facts mentioned in the statement of their claim and the contract was not enforceable as it did not comply with the provisions of Section 122 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. No material or evidence was however adduced by the appellants before the learned Single Judge in support of their objections. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties Mian Jalal -ud -Din, J. rejected the objections of the appellants and made the award a rule of the court vide his order dated July 24, 1972. It is against this order that the above noted Letters Patent appeal has been preferred.

(3.) APPEARING in support of the appeal, Mr. Ganjoo has contended that the arbitrator did not allow his clients proper opportunity to adduce evidence, that the award of the arbitrator is incomplete, that the arbitrator did not determine all the questions arising in the case and failed to determine if the appellants were entitled to an amount less than that claimed by them; that the Chief Conservator of Forests could not act as an arbitrator as he had issued instructions to his subordinates in connection with the matters in issue before him; and that he has been guilty of misconduct.