Patna High CourtC. REV./398/2014disposed

M/S Param Enterprises, P Ltd, Kolkata v. The East Central Railways Through Chief Signal And Telecom Engineer/Con/North, East Central Railway

2015-01-14Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.398 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11799 of 2014 ====================================================== M/s Param Enterprises, (p) Ltd, through Puneet Pathak (MD), son of Sri Satya Narayan Pathak, resident of 12/2 Hungerford Street, Flat-1, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani Thana, Kolkata-700017 (W.B.) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The East Central Railways Through Chief Signal & Telecom Engineer/con/north, East Central Railway, Mahendru Ghat, Patna

2. The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer/ CON, East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna

3. The Dy. Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer/ CON, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 14-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

While this Court will have no reason to review the order as there is no apparent error on the face of record, the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitration proceeding before the named official Arbitrator of the Railways will take undue long period also seems to be wholly misplaced, inasmuch as this Court has already indicated that the arbitration proceeding should be brought to an end preferably within a period of four months. Such order having been passed on 25.8.2014 if the petitioner itself has not moved seeking arbitration till date its aforesaid apprehension has to be only noted for its being rejected.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.398 of 2014 (2) dt.14-01-2015 Nonetheless if the petitioner even now approaches the competent authority for seeking arbitration, this Court would expect the Arbitrator to be more fair and take all possible steps to conclude the arbitration proceeding within the aforementioned period of four months positively. Such expeditious conclusion of arbitration proceeding, however, would always be subject to cooperation of the petitioner itself. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/- U