This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an award under the National Highways Act, 1956, held not maintainable as petitioners had exhausted remedy before an Arbitrator whose award could be challenged under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Chief Justice's Court Serial No. _351 (Connected)
**HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *****
WRIT - C No. - 11973 of 2019
Aswani Kumar and others
.....Petitioner
Through :- Mr. Devesh Kumar Verma, Advocate
v/s
Union of India and others .....Respondent
Through :- Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, Advocate for respondent No. 2, Mr. Tej Bhand Pandey, Standing Counsel
CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated May 31, 2017 passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 3G (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956') on the ground that the authority concerned did not have the jurisdiction to review its earlier award.
It is stated that prior to the impugned award in question, the competent authority had passed an award for the same land on December 17, 2016. Thereafter, by exercising the suo motu power, the competent authority reviewed its own award for which it did not have jurisdiction.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present petition at this stage is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioners filed objections against the award dated May 31, 2017 which were referred to the Arbitrator in terms of Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 and the Arbitrator had given his award on August 31, 2018. Against the aforesaid award of the Arbitrator, the petitioner had a remedy to file objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996'), hence the present
2 WRIC No. 11973 of 2019
petition at this stage to challenge the award dated May 31, 2017 is not maintainable.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, challenge to the award dated May 31, 2017 at this stage cannot be entertained by this Court for the reason that the petitioners being aggrieved against that award, had filed objections which were referred to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator had adjudicated upon the same vide its award dated August 31, 2018. If, the petitioners were aggrieved by the award of the Arbitrator they had the remedy under the Act, 1996. Challenge to the award dated May 31, 2017 against which the petitioner has availed of other remedy, is not maintainable.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)
Allahabad 16.02.2022 Shiraz/SA
Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an award under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is maintainable when objection was filed and adjudicated by an Arbitrator.
Whether the remedy lies in challenging the Arbitrator's award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 instead of filing a writ petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Aswani Kumar and others
Union of India and others
Rajesh Bindal
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
