ORDER : Aniruddha Bose, J. On 14th March, 2019 we had passed an order in a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 6368/2018) instituted by the State Highways Authority of Jharkhand, in which, one of the prayers was for declaring Sections 38 (1) and (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to be ultravires. The core dispute out of which the writ petition arose was fixing of fees by a learned Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three Hon'ble Members before whom a dispute stood referred to between the writ petitioner and the applicant of this application, being RCM Infrastructure Ltd. The learned three member Arbitral Tribunal had fixed fees of Rs. 30,00,000/- (thirty lacs) for each of the members for claim and like amount for counter claim. The writ petitioner complained that fixing of such fees went beyond Schedule IV to the 1996 Act, which was required to be followed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Advocate General who appeared for the writ petitioner before us however gave up major parts of the prayers and sought liberty to approach before the appropriate forum on the aspect of fixing of fees. The only prayer which was pressed was for a direction on the High Court Administration for formulating the rules in accordance with Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. This application has been brought mainly for deletion of part of the first sentence recorded in paragraph 3 of our order passed on 14th March, 2019. The first sentence of that paragraphs reads:- “3. The main grievance of the writ petitioner as well as the respondent no. 1, being the competing parties before the Arbitral Tribunal, is that the fees fixed thus fixed exceed the table of fees specified in Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act.” 2. The applicant's case is that fixing of fees was not their grievance. The substantive plea of the applicant is pleaded in paragraph 7 of this application, which reads:- “That in the present facts of the case, the petitioner is not aggrieved of the fee fixed by the Arbitration Tribunal as the Tribunal consciously determined its fee in terms of Schedule-IV. The submission as recorded by the Hon'ble Court at para -3 was never advanced by the present petitioner. The submission as recorded by the Hon'ble Court at para -3 was never advanced by the present petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that the following may be deleted from para-3 of the order under modification which reads as follows: “As well as the respondent no. 1 being the competing parties before the Arbitral Tribunal”.” 3. This order was dictated in open Court in presence of learned counsel for the applicant. In course of hearing before us, it was specifically put to the learned counsel for the applicant by us as to whether they also had any grievance over fixing of fees and this was answered in the affirmative by the learned counsel representing the applicant at that point of time. It was in this context the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the order was recorded. 4. The said paragraph 7 of this Application has been supported by an affidavit of one G. Jagedeeswara Rao, having his Office at 8-2-622/5/A/2, Indira Chambers 2nd Floor, Avenue -4, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. This affidavit however has been affirmed before an Advocate Oath Commissioner in Ranchi itself. The said paragraph 7 has been verified as true to the deponent's information and derived from relevant records of the case. We enquired from learned counsel appearing for the applicant as to whether the said deponent was present in Court at the time when the order was dictated and we were informed that he was not present in Court when the order was dictated. In such circumstances, in our view no reliance can be placed on the content of the said paragraph. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has indicated to us that he did not convey any such information to the deponent of the said affidavit. Source from which such information has been derived has not been disclosed in the affidavit portion of the application. 5. We had requested Mr. Pallav, who was earlier representing the said applicant to remain present in Court when this order was passed apart from Mr. Mishra, who is presently appearing for the applicant. None of them has submitted before us that part of paragraph 7 of the application in which it has been stated that the submission as recorded by this Court at paragraph 3 was never advanced on behalf of the applicant. What Mr. Mishra, who is presently appearing for the applicant. None of them has submitted before us that part of paragraph 7 of the application in which it has been stated that the submission as recorded by this Court at paragraph 3 was never advanced on behalf of the applicant. What Mr. Mishra has submitted in course of hearing before us today is that he did not have specific instruction to make such submission before this Court. That could be an independent ground for making a prayer as made in this application, provided an application to that effect is brought and this Court is ultimately satisfied that such recordal is required to be deleted. On that count, we are not making any observation in this order. In the given context, we do not find any reason to entertain this application. The said submission, as we have already recorded, was dictated in open Court. 6. Hence, this application is dismissed.