JUDGMENT

Vikash Jain, J. - This matter has been taken up for hearing through video conference. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that all defects pointed out by the stamp reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately upon resumption of physical functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month thereof. Learned counsel for the respondents states that they have no objection in this regard and the matter be taken up on merits in view of the stated urgency.

2. The following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner have been claimed in the writ petition

"(i) For issuance of writ(s), order(s) and direction(s) in the nature of writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 04.07.2020 passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 10 of 2016, wherein and whereunder it has been held by the learned Arbitrator after becoming functus officio that the statutory mandate period under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not expired and has directed the parties to pay the arbitral fees of Rs. 16,42,183/- by the next date along with list of issues to be framed;

(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the learned Arbitrator, Justice Chandra Mohan Prasad (Retd.) to revert back the case file as the mandate of the Arbitrator has expired due to expiry of statutory time period prescribed for completion of arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the aforesaid case on 25th of September, 2019, i.e. 12 months after the date this arbitral tribunal has entered upon the reference -26th September, 2018;

(iii) For issuance of writ(s), order(s) and direction(s) in the nature of stay of the proceedings during the pendency of the present writ as the stage of the proceedings will change;

(iv) To grant any other relief or relief(s) to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, the learned Arbitrator has taken a view that his mandate has not expired, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has further directed the parties to pay the arbitral fee of Rs. 16,42,183/- along with list of issues to be framed.

4. At the present stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for interim orders staying further proceedings in the said arbitration case, pending detailed hearing of this petition, inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator is insisting upon proceeding with the hearing of the arbitration case. Such interim relief is being sought mainly on the following grounds

(i) The learned Arbitrator has lost his mandate through efflux of time by dint of the provisions of Section 29A of the Act, which lays down a limitation of 12 months for making the final award reckoned from the date when the Arbitral Tribunal entered upon the reference, namely on 26.09.2018. Even if the amendment to Section 29A by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 be taken as applicable for the moment, the award had to be prepared within 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings, namely on 13.01.2019. It is therefore, submitted that in terms of Section 29A of the Act, no award could have been passed and the learned Arbitrator lost his mandate on 25.09.2019 or in the alternative, on 12.01.2020 and the question of proceeding further in the matter does not arise in the absence of extension of time by the parties or by the Court, as provided in Section 29A(4) of the Act.

(ii) In Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 31/2019 filed under Section 14 read with Section 34 of the Act, the petitioner also filed a petitio