IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11202 of 2009 Natraj Engineers Pvt. Ltd. registered office 146, Patliputra Colony, Patna- 800013 through its Director Amar Kumar Prasad Sinha, son of Late Ram Kishore Prasad Sinha, resident of 146, Patliputra Colony, P.S. Patliputra, District Patna Versus 1. The East Central Railway, Hajipur, through the Central Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar 2. The Principal Chief Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar 3. The Chief Engineer, T.S.P. East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar 4. The Deputy Chief Engineer/ T.S.P., East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s Ashwani Kr. Singh, Sr. Advocate & Pankaj Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, Advocate 04/ 07.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is a registered Private Limited Company and is engaged in manufacture/ supply of sleepers to the Indian Railways, pursuant to the agreement signed by and between the petitioner and the Railways authorities. Present writ application has been filed asserting that the respondents- railway authorities should not take coercive steps pursuant to agreement dated 16.2.2006, Annexure-2 to this application, as according to the petitioner, his case is covered by the subsequent change in policy by the Railway Administration, which is reflected in the subsequent policy document of the Railway Board dated 28.9.2007. It is evident from the prayer (a) made in the writ application that the matter is pending before the learned Arbitrator appointed in terms of the agreement and having noticed such fact when this Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to why petitioner is not pursuing the matter pending before the learned Arbitrator and has approached this Court, he candidly informed this Court that in spite 2 of filing the claim before the learned Arbitrator, the counter claim of the Railway Administration is not coming forth and the learned Arbitrator is not proceeding with the matter and he has approached this Court as the learned Arbitrator is not proceeding with the matter and the railway authorities are trying to enforce the coercive provisions contained in the agreement dated 16.2.2006, Annexure- 2. 3. Counsel for the Railways on the other hand, submitted that similar question whether subsequent policy 28.9.2007 would apply to the agreement executed by and between the parties prior to the issue of the subsequent policy document has already been settled by the Division Bench under judgment dated 6.5.2009, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit holding that the subsequent policy decision will not affect the agreement already executed between the parties and in the circumstances, the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator may not be of any assistance to the petitioner and this Court should consider the writ application on its own merit in view of the findings already arrived at by the Division Bench under judgment dated 6.5.2009, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply, submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench is already sub- judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same has no application to the case of the petitioner, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner- company is a captive unit of 3 railways and it was the bounden duty of the Railways to assist the captive unit as and when they are affected by the increase in price of the raw materials, which are used in manufacturing sleepers for exclusive use by the Railway Administration. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings made on their behalf, including the judgment of the Division Bench dated 6.5.2009, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, I am of the view that as the matter is sub-judice before the learned Arbitrator, this Court should not consider the submission of the parties on merit as the same is required to be considered by the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, I direct the learned Arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration proceeding even if the railway administration is not cooperating in the early conclusion of the proceeding. In terms of the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 itself, learned Arbitrator is empowered to even proceed ex parte. Learned Arbitrator is, accordingly, directed to conclude the arbitration proceeding as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)