IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.527 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:02.09.2009 Punjab State and others ...Petitioners versus Prem Sagar Gupta ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. None for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Government was aggrieved against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Ludhiana, which took on its file an application filed by the respondent to set aside the award passed by the Deputy Director (field), Food and Supplies Department, Patiala Division, Patiala, under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The award that had been passed on 19.06.1991 was on a representation given by the respondent complaining of the alleged wrongful cancellation of ration depot at No.15, Chandigarh Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana. Civil Revision No.527 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - 2. It is an accepted premise that the respondent had been originally a depot holder of the ration depot at No.15, Chandigarh Road, Khanna. For alleged misconduct breaching the conditions of allotment of a depot, his licence to run a depot had been cancelled by the proceedings of District Food and Supplies Controller, Ludhiana on 23.01.1991. The terms of allotment provided for an arbitral mechanism that a person aggrieved by a cancellation and who has a dispute, could seek for a reference to an Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. When the respondent complained of the cancellation before the Deputy Director (field), Food and Supplies Department, Patiala Division, Patiala, the latter passed an order purported to be an award affirming the cancellation. This award was challenged before the Sub-Judge, Ist Class on the ground inter alia that he had merely preferred only an appeal to the Deputy Director and he had not sought for any reference. It was his contention that he never knew that there were any arbitral proceedings. The Subordinate Judge, on finding that the particular representation before the Deputy Registrar, read only as an appeal against the order of cancellation and did not seem like a request for a reference to an arbitration or a claim statement before the Arbitrator, held that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself and proceeded to set aside the so-called award. In the appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, the same was confirmed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the State would contend that an award passed by an Arbitrator could be set aside only on the grounds mentioned under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act of 1940. The Civil Revision No.527 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - Deputy Director had the power under the terms of the allotment of a depot to act as an Arbitrator and the finding that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself, could not be said to be correct. The learned counsel would also urge that the direction of the Civil Judge for redelivery of the depot to the original allottee was incompetent, even if the Arbitrator could be said to have misconducted himself. 4. The findings of the learned Subordinate Judge that a representation to the second respondent-Deputy Director read only like an appeal or a representation and that he was not making any plea for an adjudication through Arbitrator cannot be said to be wrong. An arbitral mechanism is a consensual process of adjudication for resolving the disputes. Unless an Arbitrator enters upon a reference on a specific claim made by anyone of the parties to the arbitral agreement seeking for an appointment he can not don the role of an Arbitrator. If the second respondent-Deputy Director had passed an order on a representation made by the allottee of the depot and it did not have the effect of an award under the Arbitration Act, by the impugned order, the Deputy Director was affirming the order of the District Food and Supplies Controller, cancelling the allotment. Even then the allottee cannot seek for re-allotment or obtain right of re-entry into the depot. He should treat himself as an aggrieved party by the order of the Deputy Director, Food and Supplies and without assailing that order of cancellation by any process known to law, he cannot obtain the right of re-allotment or re- entry into the depot. If the order can not take effect an award, it would take effect as a simple order rejecting the appeal of the allottee. Civil Revision No.527 of 1998 (O&M) - 4 - 5. One thing stands out clearly, an order of cancellation of the depot had been made on 23.01.1991 and that order was confirmed on 19.06.1991. The respondent shall have no right to run the depot unless this order is set aside. If the order passed by the Deputy Director cannot operate as an award under the Arbitration Act of 1940, the respondent may have independent remedy to invoke the arbitral clause and seek for resolution of the dispute. The decision of the Civil Judge setting aside the order of the second respondent and ordering re-allotment of the depot was unjustified and is set aside, reserving the liberty for the respondent to challenge the order of the cancellation made by the District Food and Supplies Controller, Ludhiana, as affirmed by the Deputy Director (field), Food and Supplies Department, Patiala Division, Patiala. The civil revision is allowed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 02.09.2009 sanjeev