Nirmal Singh vs State of Punjab

R.S. Narula and K.S. Tiwana, JJ.

The award of the Arbitrator, dated November 19, 1973 (Annexure P.1) has been attacked by the petitioner on various grounds taken in the writ petition. Mr. Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, pressed into service only two grounds, namely :

(i) the award is in a prescribed pro forma and does not contain either the points in issue or the details of the claim or the reasons in support of the award. He says that this is an invalid award according to the law laid down by this Court in Mathra Dass v. The State of Punjab and others, 1975 PLJ 42: 1984 R.R.R. 409 and

(ii) the lumpsum costs amounting to Rs. 1794.30 paise have been allowed by the Arbitrator on a claim for the principal sum of Rs. 6,450/ only, which is highly disproportionate and the Arbitrator has not given any calculations on the basis of which the same has been worked out.

Mr. B.S. Khoji, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 opposes the petition. He, however, concedes that he cannot support the award for the amount of costs. That alone should be enough for quashing the award as we are not sitting as a Court of appeal against the award, and cannot set aside part of the award and uphold the rest. In any case the whole of the award is liable to be set aside on the first ground. Mr. Khoji submits that this petition should be dismissed as it is highly belated, and as the petitioner has not availed of the alternative remedy available to him by filing objections against the award in the Civil Court. The award was made in November, 1973. Mr. Khoji says that the property of the petitioner was attached in his village in August, 1974, and the petitioner cannot say that he did not know about the award even after that. Secondly he says that the amount due under the award is not being recovered as arrears of land revenue, but execution proceedings for the recovery of the amount of the award are pending in Civil Court since April, 1974. He first said that the petitioner had filed some objections in the Civil Court but had not taken the objections which are now sought to be pressed here. Counsel for the petitioner emphatically stated that the petitioner has not filed any objections in the Civil Court and never appeared in that Court. Mr. Khoji is not in a position to contradict Mr. Bahadur Singh in this respect. In this view of the matter, a few month delay after coming to know of the award at the time of the attachment in August, 1974 (even if it is assumed that it is correct), is not such an inordinate delay on account of which the petitioner should be non suited.

For the foregoing reasons we allow this petition and set aside the award Annexure P. 1 leaving it open to the Arbitrator to make a fresh award after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. At the request of Mr. Khoji, it is directed that the parties may appear before the Arbitrator on August 25, 1975. If the Arbitrator is present on that day and the petitioner does not put in appearance, the Arbitrator would be entitled to proceed ex parte.