ivil Appeal No 3054 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 1631988 of the Rajasthan High Court in SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No 2401987
K Parasaran Attorney General BL Saruparia and Badridas Sharma for the Appellant
Soli J Sorabjee Paras Kulad Rohinton F Nariman and Rathin Das for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
Leave granted
Appeal is disposed of by the judgment herein
This appeal challenges the order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 16th March 1988
The respondent s tender for construction of complete masonry dam Civil Engineering Works Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara was accepted by the appellant for a sum of Rs59030791 vide letter dated 2941974 and a provisional agreement was entered into between the parties on 2351975
The construction was commenced by the respondent company but it did not complete the same and it is alleged left the work unfinished in the year 1979 which was of the value of Rs 17980054
The letter of acceptance was dated 2351975
It is stated that the respondent did not start the work in spite of written notices and ultimately by a letter dated 24th December l979 of the Executive Engineer Dam Division Banswara the respondent was informed that as it had committed breach of the conditions of the contract the same had been terminated and that the State Govt
would complete the work under the clauses and conditions of the contract
The work had to be completed departmentally at the cost and risk of the respondent company
After some litigation between the parties when the Civil Revision was pending in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur a compromise between PG NO 444 the parties was arrived at on the 13th April 1982
It was agreed that the dispute would be settled through arbitration
By an agreement dated 13th June 1982 the parties named their arbitrators
The arbitrators entered upon the reference on 19th June 1982
On 5th May 1982 the respondent company presented its claims under 40 heads claiming a total sum of Rs 1905305928
This amount was later on revised to Rs 1822026102
The State filed a counter claim for a sum of Rs 1706302637 which was revised to Rs 12570617
It is stated that the arbitration proceedings were conducted for 52 days during which the number of sittings was 25
Various issues were framed
Minutes of the proceedings were recorded
The arbitrators gave the award on 8121982
It is stated that the award did not contain any reason as to why and how they had arrived at the figure of Rs 7541755 in favour of the respondent company
The award however mentioned that the State of Rajasthan committed breach of contract and was also guilty of wrongful revocation of the agreement and the actions taken under Clauses 2 and 3 of the conditions of the Contract were wrongful and unjustified
However
no reasons were indicated as to how the arbitrators arrived at those findings
The respondent filed an application in the Court of the learned District Judge for making the award Rule of the Court
The appellant however filed an objection on the grounds inter alia that no reasons had been given by the arbitrators for the award and the amount of interest awarded was unjustified
It was further averred that the award being ambiguous showed non application of mind and the question as regards the plant machinery of the respondent company lying at the dam site were beyond the scope of the arbitrator
The learned District Judge by his judgment and order dated 11th August 1987 allowed the objection and set aside the award on the ground of ambiguity and non application of mind
The award also suffered from the vice of non statement of reasons according to the learned District Judge
According to him the award was not in accordance with law
He further held that the plant  machinery lying at the dam site was beyond the reference made to the arbitrators
He was of the opinion that the interest amount was ambiguous and thus liable to be set aside
THere was an appeal to the High Court
The High Court allowed the appeal and passed a decree for Rs 7541755 being the amount of all claims and directed that the State should pay interest  5 pa
on the said amount for the period from 181983 to 8121985 being the period during which the arbitration proceedings were PG NO 445 pending
This decision of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal
It was contended before us that the question whether on the ground of absence of reasons the award is bad per se is pending consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court in CA No 3137 3985 314585 Jaipur Development Authority vs Firm Chhokhamal Contractor etc
It was hence urged that this should await adjudication on this point by the Constitution Bench
We are unable to accept this contention
In our opinion pendency of this question should not postpone all decisions by this Court
One of the cardinal principles of the administration of justice is to ensure quick disposal of disputes in accordance with law justice and equity
In the instant case the proceedings have long procrasticated
Indeed the learned Judge of the High Court after narrating the incidents from 1975 to 1985 concluded his judgment in March 1988 by observing that that was the end of the journey
He was wrong
That was only the end of a chapter in the journey and the appellant wants to begin another chapter in the journey on the plea that the award is not a reasoned one
The bargaining between the parties was entered into in 1974 75 and the award was made on 8th December 1985 ie a decade after the beginning of the transaction
The law as it stands today is clear that unless there is an error of law apparent on the face of the award the award cannot be challenged merely on the ground of absence of reasons
This is settled law by a long series of decisions
Interests of justice and administration of justice would not be served by keeping at bay final adjudication of the controversy in this case on the plea that the question whether an unreasoned award is bad or not is pending adjudication by a larger Bench
There have been a large number of sittings before the arbitrators
Parties have been heard
There was no misconduct in the proceedings
There has been no violation of the principles of natural justice
In such a situation it would be inappropriate to postpone the decision pending adjudication of this question by a larger Bench of this Court
We do not know how long it would take to decide that question and whether ultimately this court would decide that unreasoned awards per se are bad or whether the decision would have prospective application only in view of the long settled position of law on this aspect in this country or not
Justice between the parties in a particular case should not be in suspended animation
Law as it stands today as observed in Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth  Ors
vs Chintamanrao Balaji  Ors  is that award made by an arbitrator is conclusive as a judgment between the parties and the Court is entitled to set aside an award only if the arbitrator has misconducted himself in PG NO 446 the proceedings or when the award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or if the arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Sec
35 of the or where an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid under Sec
30 of the Act
An award may be set aside by the Court on the ground of error on the face of the award but an award is not invalid merely because by a process of inference and argument it may be demonstrated that the arbitrator had committed some mistake in arriving at some conclusion
In that decision Shah J and Sarkar J as the learned Chief Justices then were were of the view that it was not open to the Court to speculate where no reasons are given by the arbitrator as to what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his conclusions
They held the award not severable
Hidayatullah J as the learned Chief Justice then was observed that if the parties set limits to action by the arbitrator then the arbitrator had to follow the limits set for him and the Court can find his auxiliary jurisdiction
Instant case before us is also not a severable award
In Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan vs Hukumchand Mills Ltd Indore  Bachawat J speaking for the Court observed that an arbitrator could give a lump sum award
He was not bound to give a separate award for each claim
His award on both fact and law is final
There is no appeal from his verdict
The Court cannot review his award and correct any mistake in his adjudication unless an objection to the legality of the award is apparent on the face of it
In the present case the arbitrator gave no reasons for the award
There is no legal proposition which is the basis of the award far less any legal proposition which is erroneous
Also there is no allegation of any misconduct in the proceedings
It is an error of law apparent on the face of it and not mistake of fact which could be the ground for challenging the award
See in this connection the observations in Union of India vs Bungo Steel Furniture P Ltd  Also see the observations of this Court in Allen Berry  Co P Ltd vs Union of India New Delhi l971 3 SCR 282
Hence the High Court was right in the instant case
There is however one infirmity in the award as sanctioned by the High Court that is to say the grant of interest pendente lite
The arbitrators have observed as follows  By adjustment of interest held to be due to the Respondents with that held to be due to the Claimants on their items of claims which were not in the nature of claim PG NO 447 for damages for breach we hold that the Respondents do pay Rs 1792957 Rupees seventeen lacs ninetytwo thousand nine hundred fiftyseven only as interest to the Claimants upto the date of the AWARD
Claimants further do pay to the Respondents Rs Nill
 This was awarding interest pendente lite
This is in violation of the principles enunciated by this Court in Executive Engineer Irrigation Balimela  Ors
vs Abhaduta Jena  Ors 1988 1 SCC 418
Our attention was drawn by Shri Soli J Sorabjee counsel for the respondent to the decision of this Court in Food Corpn
of India vs Ms Surendra Devendra  Mohendra Transport Co where at pages 555 556 of the report the Court referred to certain decisions cited by Chinnappa Reddy J in Executive Engineer Irrigation supra in which he had expressed the view that those were cases in which the references to arbitration were made by the Court or in Court proceedings of the disputes in the suit
In that context it was held in those cases that the arbitrator had power to grant interest
It was contended before us that this was a similar case
There was a Court proceeding in this case regarding the appointment of the arbitrator and as such on the same analogy it should be treated that the arbitrator had power to grant interest
We are unable to accept this
What Mr justice O Chinnappa Reddy meant to say by the latter judgment in Executive Engineer Irrigation case referred to in Food Corporation of India supra was where the disputes regarding the merit of the case were pending in the Court and such disputes instead of being decided by the Court adjudication had been referred to an arbitrator by the Court in such cases the arbitrators deciding in the place of the Court would have the same powers to grant interest pendente lite as the Courts have under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code
Instant case is not such a proceeding
In that view of the matter this part of the award which was affirmed by the High Court of granting of interest must be deleted
We do so accordingly
Shri K Parasaran learned Attorney General assures us that the amount awarded as modified would be paid within 8 weeks from today
The appeal is thus disposed of without any order as to costs
RSS Appeal disposed of


Summary:
In compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr Pradeep Jain etc
vs Union of India B Ors
  and on the basis of the scheme approved by the Court respondent No 2 held an All India Entrance Examination for filling up 25 per cent seats in different Post Graduate Medical Colleges in the States and Union Territories and those run by public authorities
The scheme provided that cut off base should be 50 per cent marks
Out of about 2100 seats only 500 could be filled
In the Writ Petition filed before this Court the petitioner an unsuccessful candidate at the aforesaid examination sought 1 a direction that clauses 11 and 15g of the Bulletin of Information published by respondent No 2 in this regard were illegal unconstitutional and incompetent 2 a writ of certiorari to quash the list of successful candidates for admission within 25 reserved quota and 3 a writ of mandamus to the respondents to admit the petitioner and similarly placed other candidates against the 1500 odd seats left out due to the arbitrary decisionaction of the respondents contending that no seat should go unfilled
Disposing of the Writ Petition and a pending CMP in other disposed of Writ Petitions HELD 11 It is well settled that judicial determination is not to be tested by the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution
388B In the instant case since the bulletin is in accordance with the scheme approved by this Court and the examination PG NO 385 PG NO 386 has been held following the terms thereof the petitioner is not entitled to ask for quashing a part of the bulletin and the list of selected candidates
There is no tenable challenge against the examination
387H 388A 12 Since in the very first year of implementing the scheme a stalemate has arisen it is appropriate to give certain directions which may in the facts and circumstances be appropriate and adequate to meet the situation to the extent possible
Sufficient number of qualified doctors are not available
Every step should therefore be taken to turn out as many doctors with Post Graduate qualification as possible
Since about 1600 seats have reverted to the States and medical colleges located within them and have to be filled up it is in the interest of the parties that this should be done as quickly as possible so that the academic time schedule may be stuck to
388B C F 389D 13 Respondent No 2 is directed to supply to each State andor Union Territory from where candidates had appeared at the entrance test candidate wise particulars confined to such State
Once these particulars are available the Selection Committee operating in the State andor Union Territory or in the respective medical colleges covered by the scheme as the case may be shall draw up a list of the remaining candidates seeking admission as against the 75 per cent of the seats and the candidates who had taken the All India Entrance examination but have not been found fit on the basis of the marks secured in their respective selection tests or at the MBBS examination in States where there is no such selection test relating 75 per cent seats
This shall be on the footing that marks in the respective selection tests or the test and the examination are at par and admission would be on the basis of merit
No doubt the All India Selection test had been a stricter one but it would not be possible for this Court now to direct what weightage is to be added on that score
Once the common list is drawn up on the basis of performance admission to remaining seats can be taken up
389F G The admissions already effected inclusive of seats in the reserved quota shall continue
But further admissions in respect of unfilled seats as against the 25 per cent quota shall be deferred now and again taken up after the list of eligible candidates is drawn up as per the time schedule now indicated 389H 390B Dr Pradeep Jain etc
vs Union of India  Ors etc
   referred to
PG NO 387