Dismissed¶38

P. Prema, v. The Competent Authority

Madras HC8 Sept 2025WA/2603/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ appeal dismissed; non-exhaustion of alternative remedy; arbitration before Arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956; NHAI land acquisition; mandamus to consider representation; liberty and extension of time (two weeks); Arbitration and Conciliation Act; limitation point not to be insisted; dismissal following earlier Division Bench order in W.A.Nos.1927 & 1928 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025; no costs; Clause XV Letters Patent.

What did the court decide?

Liberty and two weeks' time from receipt of the judgment to the appellant to approach the Appellate Authority (Arbitrator) under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act; an arbitration appeal filed within that period to be entertained and decided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without insistence on limitation; no order as to costs.

P. Prema, Vs The Competent Authority — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the present intra-court appeal against the common writ Court order dated 22.01.2024, which dismissed W.P.No.17990 of 2018 for non-exhaustion of the alternative appeal remedy of arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956, is liable to be dismissed in the same line as the earlier writ appeals W.A.Nos.1927 & 1928 of 2025. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The present writ appeal is dismissed on the same reasoning as the writ Court's impugned order and the Division Bench's order dated 30.06.2025 in W.A.Nos.1927 & 1928 of 2025, namely non-exhaustion of the alternative appeal remedy.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Two weeks' time from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment is granted to the appellant to approach the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act.

¶33

Key takeaways

If the appeal by way of arbitration is filed within the granted time frame, it shall be entertained and decided by the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without insisting upon any limitation point against the appellant.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal W.A.No.2603 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Madras, coram R. Suresh Kumar and Hemant Chandangoudar JJ., decided 08.09.2025): Dismissed. P.Prema appealed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent against the common writ Court order dated 22.01.2024 whereby a group of writ petitions, including her W.P.No.17990 of 2018 (which sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her representation), were dismissed for non-exhaustion of the alternative appeal remedy of arbitration before the Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956. Since a Division Bench had already dismissed W.A.Nos.1927 & 1928 of 2025 on 30.06.2025 for the identical reason, this appeal met the same fate. However, noting that the fifteen-day liberty earlier granted by the writ Court had not been availed, the Court granted the appellant two weeks from receipt of the judgment to approach the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and directed that an arbitration appeal so filed would be entertained and decided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without insisting upon any limitation point. No order as to costs.

¶1

W.A.No.2603 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.A.No.2603 of 2025

P.Prema

... Appellant

-Vs-

The Competent Authority, The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, N.H-5, Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur Districts, Kancheepuram.

¶11

The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, N.H.5, Sri Towers, III Floor, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.01.2024 in W.P.No.17990 of 2018.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.M.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 Ms.S.R.Sumathy Standing Counsel for R2 O R D E R

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.A.No.2603 of 2025

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This intra Court appeal has been directed against the order dated 22.01.2024 made in W.P.No17990 of 2018 wherein a writ of mandamus was

¶19

sought for directing the respondents to consider the representation .

¶20

In fact, the impugned order was a common order passed by the writ Court dated 22.01.2024, where group of writ petitions were heard together and disposed of.

¶21

The writ Court having heard both sides was of the view that, as against the award passed by the Authority concerned, appeal remedy since has been provided under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 by way of arbitration before the Arbitrator and without exhausting such appeal remedy since the writ petitioner had straight away approached the writ Court, on the ground of non-exhausting of the appeal remedy, the writ Court has dismissed all those writ petitions including the writ petition in W.P.No.17990 of 2018 and given liberty to the writ petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority within a time frame of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.A.No.2603 of 2025

¶25

In this context, it is to be noted that, as against the said order dated 22.01.2024, already two intra-Court appeals in W.A.Nos.1927 & 1928 of 2025 were filed and in those writ appeals, the orders passed in W.P.Nos.16228 & 16230 of 2011 were under challenge, i.e., the very same impugned order. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 30.06.2025 was pleased to dismiss those intra-Court appeals stating the very same reasons of non-exhausting of alternative appeal remedy.

¶26

Therefore, insofar as the present appeal is concerned, it has to face the same fate at our hands, hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. But at the same time, Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that, a liberty was given by the writ Court in the said order dated 22.01.2024, whereby fifteen days time has been granted for the writ petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority by way of arbitration proceedings and while appeals have been filed before the Division Bench, vide its order dated 30.06.2025, the Division Bench though has dismissed the writ appeals as cited supra , such liberty and time frame since has not been given or made, it would be difficult for the present appellant also to approach the Appellate Authority, i.e., Arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and therefore, to that extent, if a clarification is given, accordingly if the writ appeal

¶27

3/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.A.No.2603 of 2025

¶30

is disposed of, that would be suffice for the appellant, he contended.

¶31

We have heard Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent amd Ms.S.R.Sumathy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent .

¶32

As has been discussed hereinabove, since this appeal also has to be dismissed for the reasons already been recorded by the writ Court through the impugned order as well as the very same reasoning having been confirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 30.06.2025 in W.A.Nos.1927 & 1928 of 2025, in the same line, the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶33

However, two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment is granted to the appellant to approach the Appellate Authority, i.e., Arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act. If such an appeal by way of arbitration is filed within the time frame, the same shall be entertained and be decided by the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without insisting upon any limitation point against the appellant.

¶34

With this liberty and extension of time to file arbitration by way of an

¶35

4/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.A.No.2603 of 2025

¶38

appeal, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to

¶39

costs.

¶40

(R.S.K., J.) (H.C., J.) 08.09.2025 (1/4)

¶41

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶42

vji

¶43

¶44

The Competent Authority, The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, N.H-5, Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur Districts, Kancheepuram.

¶45