Kamla Construction Company a Partnership Firm vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, learned JC to AAG for the State.

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay the entire arrear amount in terms of the decision of the adjudicator, submitted on 18.5.2001 and 19.5.2001 vide Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 in the matter of Package Nos. 50 and 68 of the Bihar Plateau Development Project (BPDP) and their Irrigation Component Agreement with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of dues till actual payment.

However, Mr. Shivnath learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confines his argument with regard to the decision of the adjudicator as contained in Annexure-1, to the writ application, i.e., the decision submitted on 18.5.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-1 i.e., the decision of the adjudicator and submitted that if at all the respondents were aggrieved against the said decision of the Adjudicator, they have the remedy u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by filing an application for setting aside the Arbitration award. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that u/s 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any arbitration award is final and binding on the parties.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such award of an arbitrator has the force of a decree as it can be enforced under the CPC and, therefore, the respondents are bound to pay the amount with interest pursuant to the decision of the adjudicator.

Therefore, as it appears from the facts stated in the writ application as well as from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by this application, the petitioner has made a prayer to enforce the decision of the ad judicator. In other words it can be said that the petitioner has prayed for execution of the decision of the adjudicator which in my view is fully misconceived and a writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be a proper remedy. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner may avail the appropriate remedy under the law available to him for redressal of his grievance.