JUDGMENT

Venkataswami, J.-On a close and careful scrutiny of the facts we find that the dispute in these matters lies in a very narrow compass, but longwinding arguments were addressed by referring to matters which have no real relevance to the actual disputes in these matters.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these two matters are the following :

The work of construction of Sitla Bridge over river Ravi at Champa was awarded after negotiation to the applicant/petitioner (M/s. Steeman Ltd.) on 31.12.1969. We are not giving details as they are not necessary. As there was some dispute between the parties regarding the progress of the work and payments for the same, the petitioner Company submitted disputes/differences for adjudication by an arbitrator as per clause 29 of the agreement. While so, the Executive Engineer, Champa Division imposed penalty of Rs. 63,000/- in addition to rescinding the contract on 5.7.1971. Against the order rescinding the contract and imposing penalty, the petitioner Company successfully appealed to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the Company was allowed to proceed with the work and the disputes were referred to an arbitrator.

3. As Arbitrator originally appointed was not acceptable to the petitioner Company one, Mr. R.K. Sarkar was appointed as arbitrator by mutual consent of parties. The said arbitrator entered upon the reference.

4. While the arbitration proceedings were going on, the respondents again rescinded the contract finally on 7.6.1972.

5. On 7.10.1972, the petitioner Company submitted additional claims before the arbitrator consequent upon the rescinding of the contract finally. The petitioner Company also raised a question of law before the arbitrator, namely, whether the respondent was competent to rescind the contract on the ground of slow progress when the matter in dispute was subjudice before the arbitrator during the pendency of the case . The arbitrator referred that question for opinion of the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Section 13(b) of the Indian Arbitration Act. While that was pending, it appears that in the place of Mr. R.K. Sarkar one Mr. O.B. Sablok was appointed as arbitrator. The petitioner challenged the substitution of the arbitrator before the High Court. The High Court while setting aside the removal of Mr. R.K. Sarkar and the appointment of Mr. O.B. Sablok as arbitrator, did not continue Mr. R.K. Sarkar as arbitrator. Since, no orders were passed by the High Court for proceeding further with the arbitration matter, the petitioner Company moved this Court by filing Transfer Petition No. 233 of 1980 for transfer of the cases to some other High Court. This Court disposed of the Transfer Petition on 12.3.1984 by appointing one Mr. G.N. Ramaswamiah, Chief Engineer (IPH) H.P. P.W.D. with the mutual consent of the parties with a direction to the said arbitrator to enter upon the reference and directing both the parties to appear before him on 3.9.1984.

6. The said arbitrator duly entered upon the office, held as many as 10 sittings/hearings and drew minutes of every meeting in detail. Based on that an award has been passed 14.6.1985.

7. The High Court (before which the question of law above mentioned, was referred to by Mr. R.K. Sarkar, the previous Arbitrator) disposed of the matter on 3.7.1986 stating that since the successor Arbitrator had made the award, there was no need to answer the question. On that view, the High Court dismissed the reference matter. Aggrieved by that the above special leave petition has been filed.

8. When we asked the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner whether anything survives in the special leave petition not only in view of the issues raised before the Arbitrator for adjudication but also having regard to the arbitrator appointed by this Court passing the award, the learned counsel frankly submitted that the special leave petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as having become i