Pram Prakash Lath v. National Highways Authority Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 722 of 2015

1. Pram Prakash Lath S/o Late Shri Hari Shanker Lath Aged About 50 Years Add : Nirala Nagar, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Bhimsen Agrawal S/o Late Shri Manoharlal Aged About 45 Years Add : Agarwal Colony Priydarshani Nagar Tahsil & District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

3. M/s Vicon Wheels ( I ) Pvt. Ltd Through Its Director Vaibhav Jain S/o Shri Vimal Jain Aged About 36 Raipur- Bilaspur Road Village Hardi P. O. Bilha District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Govind Agrawal S/o Shri Mannalal Agrawal Add : In Front Of Primary School Bilha P. O. Bilha District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Sanjay Dubey S/o Shri Bhagwat Dubey Aged About 48 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Main Road Revenue Tah. And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

6. Horilal Kashyap S/o Late Shri Krishna Kashyap Aged About 60 Years R/o In The Back Of Nandu Garage P. O. + Tahsil Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

7. Smt. Chandrakanta Sultaniya W/o Shri Omprakash Sultaniya R/o L- 1, Vinoba Nagar, P. O. + Tahsil - Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

8. Pankaj Parkha S/o Shri Mukundroy Parkha Aged About 49 Years Parkha K Chunnilal Jewelers Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. National Highways Authority Of India ( Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways) Through, Project Director, Office Of Project Director Project Implementation Unit, Tahsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Collector Bilaspur Tah. & Dist. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Additional Collector ( Arbitrator) District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Revenue Tah & Dist. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents

For Petitioners.

: Shri Rakesh Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No 1.

: Shri Ashwani Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 to 4/State.

: Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer on advance copy Order On Board 07/09/2015 Heard.

1.

Short grievance of the petitioners have ventilated to this petition is that even though the petitioners approached the Arbitrator appointed by the Central government way back in the month of March, 2014, till date no material progress has taken place. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the Central Government has already appointed the arbitrator who has to decide the matter. 3.

Learned State counsel submits that the matter shall be decided by the arbitrator as early as possible.

4.

Taking into consideration learned counsel for both the parties, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to dispose off the petition at this stage, with a direction to respondent No. 3 the Arbitrator to complete the arbitration proceedings as expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a outer limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Amita