IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18913 of 2010 M/S SNAPPERS ADVERTINGS & MARKETING (P) LTD., 14, SURYA APARTMENT, FRASER ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY/MANAGER, MR.VIJAY SHANKAR GUPTA SON OF SRI KRISHNA KR.GUPTA, RESIDENT OF 61, SURYA APARTMENT, FRASER ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTRICT PATNA---------------PETITIONER Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, OFFICE OF AIRPORT DIRECTOR, JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PATNA 2.THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, JAIPRAKASH NARAYAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PATNA 3.THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, KILKATA 4.THE MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, JAIPRAKASH NARAYAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PATNA 5.MR.GAUTAM MUKHERJEE, SOLE ARBITRATOR, GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE), AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, EASTERN REGION, KOLKATA-----------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Baxi S.R.P.Sinha,Sr.Advocate Bimlesh Kr.Jha, Advocate For the respondents:Mr.R.Ahsan, Asst. S.G. ------ 2. 22.11.2010 The petitioner had earlier approached this Court due to termination of its licence by the respondent Airport Authority of India and by order dated 8.3.2010 the writ application was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to invoke and request for an arbitration in terms of Clause 30 of the agreement. The petitioner thereafter invoked Clause 30 of the agreement for appointment of sole arbitrator and respondent No.5 was appointed as sole arbitrator by the Member (P & A), Airport Authority of India. Notices were 2 issued to the petitioner and the petitioner sought time up to 10.5.2010 for filing statement of facts/claims. Again he prayed for extending the time for filing claim petition by three weeks but he did not file the same within the said period nor he appeared before the Tribunal although another notice dated 21.6.2010 was issued by the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore terminated the proceedings due to non-appearance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in the matter and therefore he should be given another opportunity of hearing before the Arbitral Tribunal to pursue his claim. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 2.8.2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and issue any direction to the respondent authorities as sought by the petitioner. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/