K.Karuppa Samy v. The General Manager
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN K.Karuppa Samy ...
Petitioner Vs 1 The General Manager, Chennai - 600003.
2 The Chief Administrative Officer / Construction, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
3 The Chief Engineer / Construction / South, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
4 The Deputy Chief Engineer / Construction - III, Madurai.
5 Sri Jay Prakash Presiding Arbitrator, Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (DSL), Rolling Stock Workshop, Charbagh, Northern Railway, Lucknow.
6 Sri Salim Javid Arbitrator, Deputy FA & CAO/G, Office of PFA, Headquarters, Chennai - 600003.
...
Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.02.2025, to expedite the arbitral proceedings in No.Arbitration/40/MNM/20056/KAR and pass final award.
For Petitioner :
Ms.Dharshana, for Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj.
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.K.Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his representation, dated 14.02.2025, to expedite the arbitral proceedings in No.Arbitration/40/MNM/20056/KAR and pass final award.
2. The petitioner states that he is the Railway Contractor, who has done several works. One such work is the construction of a retaining wall and
protective works in Tirunelveli during Meter Gauge to Broad Guage conversion and also a similar work in Quilon-Tenkasi-Tirunelveli-Tiruchendur and Tenkasi-Virudhunagar, as part of Guage conversion.
3. He pleads that though work has been completed, disputes arose with regard to security deposit and other payments. Therefore, invoking the arbitration clause, the petitioner and the Railways approached the respondents 5 and 6.
4. According to the petitioner, though the matter had been pending since 2018, no steps have been taken to finalise the proceedings. Hence, he came forward with the present Writ Petition.
5. When the matter came up for admission, I heard Ms.Dharshana, for the petitioner; and Mr.K.Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the official respondents. Mr.Govindarajan pleaded that he would get instructions from the respondents 1 to 4.
6. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, Mr.Govindarajan stated that the Railways will complete the arbitration within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. Ms.Dharshana stated that the matter has been pending for a long time and hence it requires a direction.
8. Considering the submissions of both sides, there shall be a direction to the respondents 5 and 6 to complete the arbitration within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. 01.04.2025 NCC :
Yes / No Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No dixit To:
1 The General Manager, Chennai - 600003.
2 The Chief Administrative Officer / Construction, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
3 The Chief Engineer / Construction / South, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
4 The Deputy Chief Engineer / Construction - III, Madurai.
5 Sri Jay Prakash Presiding Arbitrator, Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (DSL), Rolling Stock Workshop, Charbagh, Northern Railway, Lucknow.
6 Sri Salim Javid Arbitrator, Deputy FA & CAO/G, Office of PFA, Headquarters, Chennai - 600003.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
dixit 01.04.2025