Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 29 (GUJ)

BHOGILAL CHHOGULAL v. UNION OF INDIA

2010-01-22

JAYANT PATEL

body2010
JUDGMENT The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioners are running hotel and was having 10 telephone line connections. The petitioners received the bill of Rs.1,14,622/- and as per the petitioners, the average bill was about Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/-. Therefore, the dispute was raised which initially came up before this Court in Special Civil Application No.1109/95 in which this Court observed the petitioners to approach before the Senior General Manager, Ahmedabad, Telecom services who was directed to look into the matter. The same was done by the petitioners. However, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the decision was taken which again was challenged by the petitioners by preferring Special Civil Application No.9539/96 in which this Court ultimately remanded the matter on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. Thereafter again, the same decision was taken and therefore, the petitioner preferred Regular Civil Suit No.5906/98 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and the learned City Civil Judge, in view of the provisions of arbitration, transferred the Suit to the Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator thereafter, decided the matter vide impugned decision dated 19.02.2002. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. Heard Mr.Keyur Vyas with Mr. Jani for the petitioners and Mr. A.G. Vyas for the BSNL and other respondents. The only ground which deserves to be considered in the present petition at this stage is that whether the order passed by the Arbitrator in absence of any reason recorded could be considered as valid award or not? The perusal of the impugned Award passed by the Arbitrator shows that he has narrated the facts from item Nos. 1 to 9, but has not recorded any reasons whatsoever to consider the other record and as to why he is not accepting the claim of petitioners. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the record of printout of EPABX of the petitioners and the printout of the Telephone Department was before the Arbitrator. None of the material has bee considered. In any case, in absence of any reasons recorded by the Arbitrator, the order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s.Jagjit Industries and Ors. None of the material has bee considered. In any case, in absence of any reasons recorded by the Arbitrator, the order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s.Jagjit Industries and Ors. reported at AIR 1999 SC 2280 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that non-speaking award passed by the Arbitrator is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the BSNL for supporting the Award passed by the Arbitrator and he contended that the contents of the said affidavit may be considered as reasons to pass the Award. I am afraid such contention can be accepted when the Arbitrator had to exercise quasi judicial power and had to record the reasons himself. Merely because he was an officer of BSNL or the Telephone Department, as the case may be, would not absolve himself from recording the reasons since he had to discharge the duty as quasi judicial authority and the reasons were required to be recorded by him and the same cannot be supplemented by any party to the proceedings who may be BSNL. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned Award passed by the Arbitrator is set aside with the direction that the matter shall stand restored to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator shall give the opportunity of hearing once again afresh to both the sides and after considering the material and after recording the reasons, he shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The amount paid pending the petition shall be given set off and/or adjusted as per the final decision which may be taken by the Arbitrator. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.