Sarada Prasad Nayak vs National Highways Authorities Of India And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client seeks direction upon the Collector (opposite party no.3) to expeditiously adjudicate and dispose of Arbitration Case no.53 of 2013.

Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.

Considering nature of the prayer, Court is not inclined to direct issuance of notice on opposite party no.1 (National Highways Authorities of India).

Inserted by amendment of section 29-A was done in year 2015 thereby bringing in a time frame for concluding reference under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. Prior to that the Act did not provide for any time limit. In the circumstances, the arbitration case, initiated prior to the amendment, remains pending without termination of mandate. As such this is a fit case, where there needs be direction upon the arbitrator, to expeditiously dispose of case.

Opposite party no.3 is directed to expeditiously deal with Arbitration Case no.53 of 2013, within six months of communication.

The writ petition is disposed of.

……………………………