Civil Revision No.3265 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3265 of 1997 Date of Order: 10.01.2011 Punjab State through Executive Engineer, Chandpur Construction Division, SYL Canal Project, Punjab Chandigarh ...Petitioner Versus M/s Sadhu Singh & Company ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. S.S.Sahu. AAG, Punjab for the petitioner. Mr. , Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The State of Punjab has filed this revision with a prayer that orders passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar dated 02.05.1995 and the District Judge, Rupnagar dated 21.03.1997 should be set aside. The respondent was allotted a work contract for construction of a part of the SYL Canal. A dispute arose between the parties regarding the claim for clearance of land and was referred to an arbitrator. The Arbitrator pronounced an award on 31.01.1992. On receipt of the award, by the Court, the respondent filed an objection petition under Sections 30 and 33 Civil Revision No.3265 of 1997 -2- of the Arbitration Act raising objections to the legality of the award. The State of Punjab filed a reply to the objections but did not raise any objection against the award. During pendency of proceedings before the trial Court, counsel for the respondent made a statement that as he does not press the objections filed by the respondent, the award should be made a rule of the Court. In view of this statement the Additional District Attorney appearing for the State of Punjab, made a statement that the award should be made a rule of the Court. In view of these statements, the Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar, dismissed the objections filed by the respondent and made the award a rule of the Court. The State of Punjab filed an appeal before the District Judge, Rupnagar, which was dismissed on 21.03.1997. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that the Additional District Attorney was not authorised to make a statement on behalf of the State of Punjab, much less that the award be made a rule of the Court. A law officer representing the Government cannot unilaterally make a concession on behalf of the State particularly when it involves financial implications. The statement made by the Additional District Attorney, without instructions, does not bind the State of Punjab. The revision should, therefore, be allowed and the impugned orders should be set aside. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the revision is misconceived. The Additional District Civil Revision No.3265 of 1997 -3- Attorney made a bonafide statement as the respondent withdrew his objections. The State of Punjab did not file objections to the award and, therefore, cannot possibly raise grievance against the statement made by the Additional District Attorney. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. As is apparent from the narrative of facts, the State of Punjab did not file any objections to the award. The respondent withdrew his objections. The Additional District Attorney had no option, in the absence of any objections filed by the State of Punjab, to make a statement that the award be made a rule of court. Even if the statement made by the Additional District Attorney were to be excluded from consideration, once the respondent withdrew his objections, the trial court, would have no option except to make the award a rule of Court. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision is dismissed. January 10, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE