CR No. 3819 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No.3819 & 3995 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.09.2010 Him Papers and Packages Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sareeta Singla, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgement dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, setting aside the arbitration award. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.1 herein has issued a purchase order dated 12.4.1985 in favour of the petitioner for the purchase of cream wove writing papers to the tune of Rs.13,94,840/-; CR No. 3819 of 2010 2 the material was to be supplied by the petitioner in three lots, first from April to June, 1985, second from July to September, 1985. The supply was made and on checking, the Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board: Patiala on 15.6.1985 found the paper to be below the specification and was not in accordance with the sample furnished with the tender. Vide letter dated 29.6.1985, the petitioner was informed about the result and was asked to supply the paper in accordance with the sample. The petitioner vide letter dated 2.7.1985 asked the PSEB authorities to get the paper material tested from a government laboratory. Thereafter, sample was sent to the government laboratory for conducting of test and the government laboratory in its test, found a lot of variation in the quality of the material supplied than the sample supplied at the time of submission of tender. Having received the result from the government laboratory, third lot was cancelled, however, first lot was accepted after imposing a penalty of 1% on the total amount. Aggrieved by the cancellation order and imposing of penalty, the petitioner got an arbitrator appointed and the disputed was referred to Mr. S.P.S. Verma, Advocate. However, later on this Court appointed Mr. Adarsh Kumar, as an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and the arbitrator gave his award dated 2.6.1989, awarding an amount of Rs.3,07,665/- in favour of the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 12.1.1986 to 13.2.1989. Petitioner made an application before the Court for making award rule of the Court. However, respondent No.1 filed objections against the award. The trial Court vide judgement dated 11.6.1993 rejected the objections filed by the respondent herein and directed to make the award rule of the Court, however, reduced the interest from 18% to 12% on the awarded amount CR No. 3819 of 2010 3 from the date of decree till realization of the amount. The respondent herein filed an appeal. The petitioner also filed an appeal before this Court against the order for omitting to grant interest upto the date of decree. However, this Court vide order dated 11.2.2008 transferred the appeal of the PSEB to the Court of the District Judge, Patiala, which was heard and decided by the Appellate Court along with the appeal filed by the petitioner, thereby allowing the appeal and setting aside the award. The Appellate Court has observed that the arbitrator has ignored the report of the government laboratory wherein variation was found in the material supplied than the sample supplied at the time of submission of the tender. The first Appellate Court placing reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of K.F. Poulose Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1975 SC 1259, has held that when an arbitrator has ignored two material documents to arrive at just decision, it can be held that the arbitrator has mis-conducted the proceedings. The Appellate Court has also observed that the award dated 2.6.1989 is non-speaking award, despite of clear-cut instructions issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board vide office order No.6328/Cadre dated 24.2.1989 to the effect that the arbitrator appointed by the competent authority to announce speaking award in cases where financial involvement of the amount is more than Rs.50,000/-, since, the amount involved in this case was more than Rs.3 lacs, speaking award ought to have been passed which was not passed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the arbitrator was competent to pass non-speaking award and simply because CR No. 3819 of 2010 4 two views are possible, the arbitration award can not be said to be outcome of misconduct. He further argued that once the first lot was accepted after imposing penalty of 1% over the total amount then there was no occasion for the respondent to cancel the third lot. Undisputedly, on inspection, the Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board: Patiala found that the supplied material was not as per the specifications and the sample supplied along with the tender. Undisputedly, on the request of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the government laboratory and the government laboratory also found a lot of variation in the material supplied than the sample supplied at the time of submission of tender. It seems that the arbitrator has ignored both the vital evidence, hence, in the opinion of this Court, misconduct on the part of the arbitrator is proved. Moreover, office instructions of the Department provides that if the award amount is more than Rs.50,000/- then the arbitrator has to pass speaking award. There is nothing on the record as to why inspection report of the Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board: Patiala and the inspection report of the government laboratory were ignored. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, view taken by the first Appellate Court requires no interference. Petition is dismissed. A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of connected case. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 20.09.2010 sk.