Vijay Sah v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18109 of 2018 ====================================================== Vijay Sah son of Yogendra Sah, resident of 72 Kh, Police Station - Ramagarhwa, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali.

2.

The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur. 3.

The Assistant Divisional Manager, East Central Railway Muzaffarpur. 4.

The Senior Section Engineer Works, East Central Railway, Sagauli, East Champaran.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ramadhar Shekhar, Addl.S.C. (Railway) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 04-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Railways.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents-Railways.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not required to file any rejoinder thereto and the matter may be heard and disposed off on the basis of materials available on the record. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways and upon perusal of the statements made in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has submitted a copy of representation as contained in Annexure '4' to the writ application to the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali

Patna High Court CWJC No.18109 of 2018(5) dt.04-11-2019 2/2 who will look into the grievance of the petitioner, shall examine all these issues raised by him and shall take an appropriate decision with an intention to amicably resolve the dispute in terms of the agreement. In case the dispute cannot be resolved amicably, the parties may invoke the relevant provision of the agreement which talks of resolution of dispute through arbitration. In this regard it has been submitted that although in Clause 24, the General Manager, East Central Railway has been named as *fookpd* (Arbiter), now in view of the amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, he cannot act as Arbitrator.

At this stage, this Court would only observe that in case the parties have, in terms of Clause 24, decided to get the matter resolved through arbitral process, it will be open for them to agree on the mode of appointment of the Arbitrator if occasion so arises. Till a decision is taken by the General Manager, East Central Zone, Hajipur on the representation of the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken against him to forcibly evict from the premises. The writ application stands disposed off.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) ved/- U