IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 25949 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.C.JAILAVUDDEEN, MANCHIRA VEEDU, NANDANKIZHAYA, ANAMARI POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 2. THE ARBITRATOR, THE ASST. DIRECTOR/TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 3. MUDALAMADA (WEST) KSHEERAVYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD.NO.P3(D), NANDAN KAZHAYA POST, ANAMARI, CHITTUR, KOLLAMKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25949 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the defendant in ARC 4/2002 on the files of the 2nd respondent. Pleadings are complete in the same. The defendant filed an I.A for examining the president and another witness in the ARC. That application was rejected by the arbitrator. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal as R.P. No. 211/2004 in which, by Ext. P3 order, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh disposal, after affording fresh opportunity to both parties to contest the I.A. That order was passed on 30-3-2006. The petitioner raises two grievances in this writ petition. First is that despite Ext. P3 order on 30-3-2006, the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps to hear and dispose of the I.A after the remand even after 3½ years. Second is that although the ARC was filed in 2002, even after 7 years, no steps have been taken to take evidence and complete the proceedings in the ARC. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order, commanding the 1st & 2nd respondents to take up ARC No. 4/2002 and to dispose the same after complying the direction in Ext. P3 order of the Co-operative Tribunal, within a time frame; (ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order, commanding the 2nd respondent to pass orders in compliance with Ext. P3 before proceeding further with ARC No. 4/2002. (iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order, directing the 1st respondent to appoint another Arbitrator in the place of the 2nd respondent who is now acting as the arbitrator in ARC No. 4/2002.” 2. The petitioner submits that in view of the fact that there has W.P.C. No. 25949/2009 -: 2 :- been undue delay on the part of the 2nd respondent, the matter should be heard by another arbitrator. Therefore, I put to the learned Government Pleader as to whether the matter can be referred to another arbitrator. Today, the learned Government Pleader submits that there is no need for referring the case to another arbitrator. However, he would submit that if this Court is of opinion that in view of the delay caused by the 2nd respondent in disposing of the matter, the matter has to be heard by another arbitrator, there is no objection in appointing another arbitrator in the matter. 3. After hearing both sides, I feel that in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the of the 2nd respondent in considering the matter insofar as the I.A has not been considered as directed in Ext. P3 judgment for a period of 3 ½ years and the ARC itself is pending for the last 9 years, it is only appropriate that another arbitrator be appointed to hear this ARC. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 4. The 1st respondent shall pass orders transferring the ARC No. 4/2002 pending on the files of the 2nd respondent to another arbitrator within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The new arbitrator shall consider and dispose of the I.A referred to in Ext. P3 order of the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of his appointment. The arbitrator shall complete the proceedings in the ARC and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of passing orders in the I.A. However, I make it clear that this will not preclude the petitioner from W.P.C. No. 25949/2009 -: 3 :- challenging the order in the I.A if the same is adverse to him, in which case, if the Tribunal chooses to pass interim orders, the time limit will not be applicable. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.