IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Request Case No.2 of 2011 M/S Sig Tel. Enterprises through Vinod Kumar Singh aged about 49 years, son of Late Trilok Nath Singh, resident of Mohalla- Mrichaibari Near Jagarnath Mandir P.S. & District-Katihar. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The East Central Railways through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 2. The Chief Singnal Telecome Engineer, Con. MHX SC/1 Kulharia Complex, Mahendrughat, Patna. 3. The Dy. C.S. T.E. Con. PIG, Kulharia Complex Mahendru Ghat, Patna. ….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s Sanjay Singh & Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, Advocate. -------- 07/ 28.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟ for the sake of brevity) for appointment of an independent Arbitrator for amicable settlement of the dispute between both the parties regarding payment of outstanding dues. 3. It transpires that earlier Request Case No.15 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner against the same opposite parties which was disposed of vide order dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure-1) with the following observations:- “ 6. Admittedly Tribunal is now complete and the matter is pending before it. Hence the petitioner is directed to - 2 - approach the Chairman of the Tribunal within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order as well as a fresh statement of facts along with the petitioner‟s claim, whereafter all the Arbitrators of the Tribunal must within one month start holding regular meetings at Danapur without fail so that the matter may be disposed of positively within three months thereafter. It may be noted that no undue adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties and all of them must co-operate with the Tribunal for early disposal of the matter. 7. If the Tribunal does not decide the matter within the aforesaid time in spite of best efforts of the petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to move this court for appointment of individual Arbitrator which will be decided in accordance with specific provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the Chairman of the Tribunal along with a copy of the said order on 24.03.2011. The claim of the petitioner is that thereafter nothing has been done by the Tribunal and out of three members, two never sat and even the third one was absent from his office and there was no presenting officer on behalf of the Railway and the petitioner had to contact with the clerk of the office only and about six months have passed, but no step had been taken by the authorities concerned. Hence, he avers that there is a necessity for the appointment of an Arbitrator, especially in view of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 09.03.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that an award has already been prepared on 23.06.2011 within the allotted time signed by all the three arbitrators. Hence earlier order of this court has been complied and there is no occasion for appointment of fresh Arbitrator. - 3 - 6. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit stating that although the award is claimed to have been signed by all the three Arbitrators on 23.06.2011, but the procedure provided in the Act has not been followed and the award is non-speaking and had been sent to the petitioner on 30.06.2011. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that an award has been prepared and passed. So far the alleged illegality in the award is concerned, this court cannot look into the same under this jurisdiction and appropriate authority/forum/court is prescribed under the Act. However, if the award is set aside by any authority/forum/court only thereafter the occasion will arise for the petitioner to pray for appointment of an independent Arbitrator in the said matter. 8. With the said observation, this petition is disposed of. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)