IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28388 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NITHYANANDA BUILDING (LIC) KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICER, KOCHI. 3. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): CLAIM PETITIONER: -------------------------------- K.ABDULLA, MANAGING PARTNER, SHOBHA TEXTILES, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28388 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are officers of an Insurance Company. This Court in an arbitration request filed by the respondent, appointed an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioners herein and the respondent. Among other contentions, the petitioners have got a contention that as per Ext.P1 no arbitration would lie and also that a managing partner of a partnership firm cannot file an arbitration request in respect of a policy issued to a proprietary concern. The petitioners submit that although the petitioners moved the Court which appointed the arbitrator for review of the order appointing arbitrator, on those grounds, this Court left it to the Arbitrator to decide those issues also. The petitioners raised these two issues and other issues as a preliminary point, which was rejected by the Arbitrator by Ext.P10 order. Ext.P10 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I am of opinion that this writ petition itself is not maintainable for several reasons. First is that the respondent o.p.14697/00 2 arrayed in this writ petition is an individual against whom no writ petition would lie, unless he is exercising a public function. The petitioners have no case that the respondent herein is exercising a public function. The Arbitrator is not made a party to the writ petition. Even if he was also impleded, in so far as the Arbitrator is also not exercising any public function, no writ petition would lie against the orders passed by him. The remedy of the petitioners lies in filing an appeal against Ext.P10 order, if such an appeal is maintainable and if no such appeal is maintainable against the final award to be passed by the Arbitrator as provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Without prejudice to such right of the petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed. I make it clear that I have not decided any of the contentions on merits and it would be open to the petitioners to raise all contentions appropriately. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.14697/00 3 ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge