(Per K.G. Shankar, J.)

The petitioners filed W.P.No.5615 of 2006 seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order and decree dated 11.02.2008 in I.A.No.1067 of 2007 in O.P.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Lok Adalat, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and the Award dated 07.04.2007 in O.P.No.2 of 2005 as illegal, arbitrary and void and to set aside the same. Further direction is sought to be issued to the Lok Adalat, City Civil Court, Secunderabad to return O.P.No.2 of 2005 to the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for adjudication. The petitioners also filed W.P.No.5863 of 2008 challenging the order of the Lok Adalat bench in I.A.No.1062 of 2007 in O.P.No.1 of 2005 passed on the same date on 07.04.2007.

2. The circumstances in which the writs are filed may briefly be stated at this stage:

(a) An agreement was entered into between the second petitioner representing the South Central Railway and the sole respondent on 31.10.1981. The agreement was to construct a building for the usage of the Railway Recruitment Board, Secunderabad. The agreement value was Rs.3,92,946/-. The work was to be executed by the respondent within six months from the date of agreement. It would appear that the time was extended at the request of the respondent. The work was completed on 31.03.1984. The respondent received Rs.3,70,411/-in full satisfaction of the execution of the works by him.

(b) However, on 07.12.1994 the respondent preferred five claims for reference to the Arbitrator. The General Manager of the South Central Railway rejected three of the claims and communicated the same to the respondent-Contractor on 07.10.1996. Two of the claims, however, were referred to an Arbitrator. On 02.12.1996, the sole arbitrator passed an award for a sum of Rs.2,14,106/- as against the claim for Rs.2,50,000/-in respect of item No.1. The Arbitrator also issued further directions. The trial Court, however, set aside the award passed by the sole arbitrator. In C.M.A.No.465 of 1999 on the file of this Court, the order of the trial Court was set aside. The award of the sole arbitrator dated 02.12.1996 was made the Rule of the Court through judgment dated 15.10.2009. The South Central Railway paid Rs.3,39,000/- and Rs.24,642/- including interest to the respondent-contractor in December, 1999 in terms of the award dated 02.12.1996.

(c) While the award passed by the Arbitrator was before the trial Court, the respondent-contractor raised three more claims through letter dated 14.06.1998. The General Manager was requested to refer the three claims for adjudication by the Arbitrator. On 13.02.2002, the General Manager rejected the request of the respondent-contractor. The respondent- contractor consequently filed O.P.No.4 of 2002 seeking for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The trial Court passed orders on 13.10.2004 appointing another arbitrator (second Arbitrator, for short) as the sole arbitrator for the adjudication of the disputes.

(d) Before the second arbitrator, the respondent-contractor preferred seven claims. The learned second arbitrator allowed claims 5 and 7 only and rejected the rest of the claims through the award dated 16.08.2005. The learned second arbitrator allowed the claim to a tune of Rs.58,74,383/- together with interest at 18% per annum from 01.01.2000 till the date of realization. The total value of the award of 2005 as on today is more than Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

(e) The South Central Railway challenged the award of the second arbitrator through O.P.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad. The respondent-contractor in his turn filed O.P.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the same Court seeking to make the Award the Rule of the Court. While so, on 15.09.2005, the respondent addressed a letter to the South Central Railway seeking for a negotiated settlement. A similar letter was addressed by him to the Principal Chief Engineer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad on 14.11.2006 for out