IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO 112 of 2002. Date of decision July 31, 2008. Devinder Singh Pannu ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Shri J.S.Bhogal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3 Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the arbitrator on 17.12.2001 closing proceedings under Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the ground that the petitioner has remained constantly absent from proceedings. The order reads: “ CASE NO. 20/2001. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Proceedings of 3rd hearing held on 7.12.2001 in the office of Superintending Engineer, Arbitration, HP, PWD, Solan. --- In the matter of arbitration between Shri Devinder Singh Pannu Govt. Contractor and the State of HP through the Executive Engineer, Kangra Divn. HP PWD, Kangra for the work “C/O Kangra Airport at Gagal in Tehsil & District Kangra). (SH:- Earth work for side slope)- Agreement No. 17 of 1989-90. Present: 1. Shri Partap Singh Sr. Asstt.representing Executive Engineer, Kangra Divn. HP PWD., Kangra. ………Respondent. ABSENT. 2. Shri Devinder Singh Pannu Contr. …….Claimant. The contractor is absent even in today’s hearing as well as he was absent in the previous hearing held on 15.6.2001 and 5.11.2001. The claimant/ contractor is not acknowledging the copy of the proceedings/correspondence of this Forum which are being sent to him as per his bonafide address given on the appointment letter dt. 3.3.2001. The registered correspondence/proceedings are being received back undelivered with the remarks of the Postal authority that “addressee - 3 - left without address”. Since whereabouts of the claimant/Contr. Is not known or he is evading the registered correspondence as well as evading the attendance in this Forum, therefore, under the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section-25 the proceedings of the said Arbitration case is hereby terminated. Absent Sd/- Sd/- (Claimant)Respondent Arbitration-cum- Superintending Engineer, Arbi- tration, HP, PWD, Solan.” REGISTERED No. SE-ARB-2-/2001-2001-2297-98 Dt. 7.12.2001. 1. Copy to Shri Devinder Singh Pannu Govt. Contr. 1318, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. 2. Executive Engineer, Kangra Divn. HP PWD, Solan. Sd/- Arbitration-cum-Superintending Engineer, Arbitration, HP, PWD, Solan.” This order makes a strange reading. It is undisputed before me that in OMP(M) 86 of 2000, an order was passed by this Court on 12.1.2001 appointing an arbitrator. This Court ordered: - 4 - “12.1.2001 Present: Ms. Preeti Sethi, Advocate, vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sandip Kaushik, Asstt. AG, for the respondents. …Heard. The learned Assistant Advocate General representing the respondents has placed on record written instructions received from the Executive Engineer, Kangra Division, HP PWD, Kangra, that the payment of 6th running bill amounting to Rs.3,60,148/- was made to the Contractor vide Voucher No. 37 dated 26.3.1992 and the final bill was neither prepared nor paid to the Contractor for the reason that he did not execute any further work and in these circumstances, had the final bill been prepared, that would have been NIL. This stand taken by the Executive Engineer clearly shows that the dispute raised by the contractor is referable to arbitration. Order accordingly. The Engineer in Chief HP PWD is directed to appoint an Arbitrator to decide the dispute raised by the Contractor as per the arbitration agreement within a period of six weeks. The petition is disposed of…” The memo of parties of this order requires consideration, as the petitioner herein had given - 5 - his address as House No. 1110, Sector 36, Chandigarh. It is undisputed that the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Executive Engineer, Kangra Division, HP PWD, Kangra were party to these proceedings. How and under what circumstances it has been held by the arbitrator that the petitioner herein was not responding to the notices and attending proceedings is not clear. Finding, that communications are being sent on the address as given in the contract, cannot be accepted as in OMP(M) 86 of 2000, the State was aware of the address. The title of that petition reads: “ Shri Devinder Singh Pannu son of Shri Milkha Singh, resident of House No. 1110, Sector 36, Chandigarh. …..Claimant. and 1. State of Himachal Pradesh & another through its Secretary (PWD) to Govt. of HP, HP Secretariat, Shimla-2. 2. The Executive Engineer, Kangra Division, HPPWD, Kangra. …Respondents.” The State was thus aware about the address of the petitioner and it was incumbent upon the arbitrator to have addressed the communications to him on this address alone. Invoking provisions - 6 - of Section 25 of the Act on the ground that there is no sufficient cause on record for the claimant not to file his statement of claim in accordance with sub section (1) of Section 23 of the Act and thus terminating the proceedings, is without jurisdiction and not supported by any material on record. This finding has been arrived at by this Court on the material on record including the Court proceedings appointing the arbitrator. My attention has also been drawn to the communications addressed by the petitioner to the arbitrator dated 8.1.2002 and 8.2.2002 stating therein that the communications were not sent by the arbitrator at the correct address and for this reason, the proceedings could not be closed, nor could the powers under Section 25 of the Act be invoked. There is no denial about the receipt of these communications, but a bald insistence by the respondent that it was the duty of the petitioner to have furnished correct address which cannot be accepted. This petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the arbitrator invoking Section 25 of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside. A direction is issued that the arbitrator shall start the - 7 - proceedings afresh. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the arbitrator forthwith by the Registry. On receipt of the order, the arbitrator shall proceed in accordance with law. Needless to add that proper notices should be sent by him to the parties. The parties can also deliver a copy of this order to the arbitrator, who shall then proceed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Records of the proceedings be sent back to the arbitrator. July 31, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.