DICTION Writ Petition No 626 of 1988 etc
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India GRamaswamy Additional Solicitor General section Murlidharan ADN A Subba Rao and and Krishan Kumar for the Petitioners
PG NO 520 Kuldip Singh Additional Solicitor General KK Venugopal Kapil Sibbal Lal Chand CS Vaidyanathan HS Phoolka NS Das Rajiv Khosla P Tripathi Kailash Vasdev Miss A Subhashini Harish Salve and Ravinder Sethi for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER VENKATARAMIAH J
It is unfortunate that this case has arisen between lawyers and police who are both guardians of law and who constitute two important segments of society on whom the stability of the country depends
It is hoped that cordiality between the two sections will be restored soon
In order to avoid any further delay in the proceedings before the Committee consisting of Goswamy and Wadhwa JJ constituted by Order dated 23rd February 1988 to enquire into certain incidents which took place on the 15th January 1988 2lst January 1988 and 17th February 1988 we pass the following order now but we shall give detailed reasons in support of this order in due course
The order is as under 1
This order is passed on the basis of the material available on record the various steps already taken before the Committee and other peculiar features of the case
The Delhi Administration has to examine first all its witnesses as required by Rule 55a of the Commissions of Inquiry Central Rules 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Rules  framed under the hereinafter referred to as the Act 
Even those witnesses who may have filed affidavits already may first be examined in chief before they are cross examined since it is stated that when the affidavits were filed the deponents did not know what the other parties who have also filed affidavits had stated in their affidavits
The question whether a party has the right of cross examination or not shall be decided by the Committee in accordance with section 8 C of the Act
In the facts and circumstances of the case to which reference will be made hereafter this direction issued to the Delhi Administration to examine its witnesses first as provided by rule 55a of the Rules referred to above does not apply to those witnesses falling under section 8 B of the Act who have to be examined at the end of the inquiry as opined by the Committee itself
PG NO 521 3
We have gone through the severalaffidavits and other material placed before the Committee and also the Interim Report dated 9488 passed by the Committee
In para 13 of the Interim Report the Committee has observed thus During the course of the inquiry we have to examine the conduct of various police officers and others and particularly as the record shows of the DCP North Addl
DCP North SHO PS Samepur Badli and SI Incharge Police Post Tis Hazari and SISamepur Badli
 In para 14 of the Interim report it is observed Lawyers have seriously urged that this Committee should send a report recommending suspension of the DCP North Ms Kiran Bedi Ultimately the Committee recommended the transfer of the petitioners in these cases namely Ms Kiran Bedi DCP North and Jinder Singh SI Incharge Police Post Tis Hazari
Section 8 B of the Act reads  8 B If at any stage of the inquiry the Commission a considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person  or b is of opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicial affected by the inquiry the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence  Provided that nothing in this section shall apply where the credit of a witness is being impeached In its Interim Report the Committee has unequivocally observed that it had to examine the conduct of various police officers and in particular among others Ms Kiran Bedi DCP North and Jinder Singh  section I Incharge Police Post Tis Hazari
PG NO 522 Having given our anxious consideration to all the aspects of the case we hold that the petitioners Ms Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh are persons who fall under section 8 B of the Act and have to be dealt with accordingly
According to the Committee s own opinion formed in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case all those persons to whom notices under section 8 B of the Act are issued have to be examined at the end of the inquiry
This is obvious from the order of the Committee passed on 29688 after it was asked by this Court by its order dated June 2 1988 to reconsider the whole question relating to the order in which the witnesses had to be examined in the case
In its order dated 29688 the Committee has observed thus Without going into the controversy if Rule 55 is an independent Rule or is governed by section 8 B and 8 C of the Act we would direct that in the circumstances of the case three persons namely the Additional Commissioner of Police Special Branch DCP Traffic and Mr Gopal Das Kalra SI to whom notices under section 13 B of the Act have been issued be examined at the end of the inquiry
 If three persons referred to above to whom notices under section 8 B have been issued are to be examined even according to the Committee at the end of the inquiry there is no justifiable reason to deny the same treatment to the petitioners Ms Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh who are in the same position as those three persons
The action of the Committee in asking them to be cross examined at the beginning of the inquiry appears to us to be discriminatory
Mere non issue of notices to them under section 8 B ought not to make any difference if they otherwise satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 8 B
The issue of such a notice is not contemplated under section 8 B of the Act
It is enough if at any stage the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person
Such person would thereafter be governed by section 8 B of the Act
The Committee should have considered whether the petitioners were entitled to be treated as persons governed by section 8 B of the Act before asking them to get into the witness box for being cross examined
If the Committee had found that the petitioners were covered under section 8 B then perhaps they would not have been asked to get into the witness box for being cross examined till the end of the inquiry
The Committee would have then asked them to give PG NO 523 evidence along with others who were similarly placed at the end of the inquiry
On behalf of both the petitioners it is submitted that they did not either wish to delay the proceedings or to show disrespect to the Committee but only wanted to protect their own interest by making the submission which they made before the Committee as per legal advice given to them
This is not a case where the circumstances in which the several incidents that had taken place were not known to anybody else
The affidavits and other material before the Committee show that there were a large number of persons who were eye witnesses to the incidents and why could give evidence before the Committee
Taking into consideration all the aspects of the case we feel that the Committee should not have in the circumstances of the case directed the filing of a complaint against either of the petitioners for an offence punishable under section 178 IPC
In view of the foregoing we feel that the orders of the Committee directing the filing of the complaints and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate pursuant to the complaints filed on behalf of the Committee should be quashed and we accordingly quash the said orders of the Committee and also the criminal proceedings
A judgment containing the reasons for this order will follow
Before concluding this order we record the statement made by Shri Kuldip Singh learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Delhi Administration that the Delhi Administration and its police officers will fully cooperate with the Committee so that the Committee may complete its work as early as possible
We also record the statement made by Shri G Ramaswamy learned Additional Solicitor General that he and his clients the petitioners in this case hold the Committee in great respect and that they never intended to show any kind of discourtsey to the Committee
He also expresses apology for using one or two strong words against the Committee in the course of the arguments in this Court


Summary:
A dispute over the completion of construction work under a contract led to the litigation between the appellant and the respondent company
However during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court the parties agreed to settle the dispute through arbitration
The Arbitrators gave their award in favour of the respondent company on the ground that the appellant had committed breach of contract and was also guilty of wrongful revocation of the agreement
The award did not contain any reason as to why and how the Arbitrators had arrived at the sum awarded
The appellant filed objection to the respondent s application for making the award Rule of the Court on the ground inter alia that i no reasons had been given for the award ii the award being ambiguous showed non application of mind and iii the amount of interest awarded was unjustified
The learned District Judge allowed the objection and set aside the award on the ground of ambiguity and non statement of reasons
The High Court however allowed the respondent s appeal and also directed payment of interest for the period during which the arbitration proceedings were pending
Before this Court it was urged that because 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 the present case should await adjudication on this point by the Constitution Bench
Disposing of the appeal it was HELD 1 One of the cardinal principles of the administration of justice is to ensure quick disposal of PG NO 441 PG NO 442 disputes in accordance with law justice and equity
Justice between the parties in a particular case should not be in suspended animation
445B C G 2 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
445E F 3 It is not known whether the decision of this Court would have prospective application only in view of the long settled position of law on this aspect in this country or not
445G 4 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
445E 5 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
446B 6 It is 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
446C Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth vs Chintamanrao Balaji  Ors   referred to
7 It is an error of law apparent on the face of it and not a mistake of fact which could be the ground for challenging the award
446F Union of India vs Bungo Steel Furniture P Ltd  and Allen Berry  Co P Ltd vs Union of India   referred to
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
And there is no allegation of any misconduct in the proceedings
446E F 9 The award of interest pendente lite in this case was in violation of the principles enunciated by this Court
447B PG NO 443 Executive Engineer Irrigation Balimela vs Abhaduta Jena 1988 1 SCC 418 followed
Food Corporation of India vs Ms Surendra Devendra  Mohendra Transport Co 1988 1 SCC 57 explained