IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Request Case No.48 of 2008 ====================================================== Sri Amritesh Kumar Roy son of Sri Bindeshwar Roy Village Sokhara P.O. Barauni P.S. Fulwaria, District Begusarai .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway At & P.O. Hajipur, District Vaishali. 2. The Sr. Divisional Engineer II E.C. Railway At & P.O. Sonepur, District Saran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== With Request Case No.49 of 2008 ====================================================== Sri Amritesh Kumar Roy son of Sri Bindeshwar Roy Village Sokhara P.O. Barauni P.S. Fulwaria, District Begusarai .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway At & P.O. Hajipur, District Vaishali. 2. The Dy. Chief Engineer (Con) N.E. Railway At & P.O. Muzaffarpur District Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== With Request Case No.50 of 2008 ====================================================== Sri Amritesh Kumar Roy son of Sri Bindeshwar Roy Village Sokhara P.O. Barauni P.S. Fulwaria, District Begusarai .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway At & P.O. Hajipur, District Vaishali. 2. The Sr. Divisional Engineer E.C. Railway At & P.O. Sonepur, District Saran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== With Request Case No.51 of 2008 ====================================================== Sri Amritesh Kumar Roy son of Sri Bindeshwar Roy Village Sokhara P.O. Barauni P.S. Fulwaria, District Begusarai .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway At & P.O. Hajipur, District Vaishali. 2. The Dy. Chief Engineer II East Central Railway At & P.O. Samastipur District Samastipur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.48 of 2008 (9) dt.19-05-2016 2/3 Appearance : (In REQ. CASE No.48 of 2008) For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, Advocates (In REQ. CASE No.49 of 2008) For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, Advocates (In REQ. CASE No.50 of 2008) For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, Advocates (In REQ. CASE No.51 of 2008) For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 9 19-05-2016 From the letter dated 19.07.2013 of the learned Arbitrator, it transpires that pursuant to his appointment in Request Case Nos. 48/2008, 49/2008, 50/2008 and 51/2008 for resolving the disputes between Sri Amritesh Kumar Roy and the E.C. Railway, hearing of the matters were duly taken up. While the matters related to Request Case Nos. 48/2008 and 50/2008 were disposed of in terms of the awards dated 13.11.2011 and 17.03.2013 respectively, the hearing in the matter related to Request Case No. 51/2008 was almost complete, while some sittings in the matter related to Request Case No. 49/2008 had taken place. Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.48 of 2008 (9) dt.19-05-2016 3/3 2. It has been informed that by reason of certain allegations/apprehensions expressed by the claimant, the learned Arbitrator has since withdrawn himself from the two pending matters related to Request Case Nos. 49/2008 and 51/2008. 3. It has further been stated that the learned Arbitrator has not been paid his remuneration (Rs. 71,000/-) in the disposed of matter related to Request Case No. 50/2008 nor in the two matters pending as aforesaid. The respondents have not made payment in any of the cases. 4. Having regard to the provisions of Sections 39, Section 2(e) and Section 31(8) as it stood prior to its substitution with effect from 23.10.2015 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, no order need be passed by this Court. B.T/- (Vikash Jain, J) U