Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.—The petitioners has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the prayer to set aside the order and judgement dated 26.04.2022 passed by the Learned District Judge, Patna whereby an application filed by the petitioners under-section 14 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected. Further prayer for allowing the application and declaring the mandate of the arbitrator to be terminated on the ground that he has become de-jure and de-facto unable to perform his functions effectively. The facts which are required to be noticed are petitioner is a Government Company and is the respondent party in the arbitrary proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 3. vide order dated 28.06.2017, this Court appointed one Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Jayanandan Singh as sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act of 1996. An application under section 14 was preferred by the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal stating that they had lost the trust and confidence in the Arbitral Tribunal to get justice in impartial manner and that he had lost his mandate de-jure and de-facto to continue the arbitration proceedings. The same was considered by the Arbitrator and was rejected vide order dated 05.02.2022. The order was challenged by the petitioner before the Learned District Judge which was dismissed by the Learned District Judge vide his order dated 26.04.2022, upholding the order of the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was several circumstances which goes to show that the arbitrators mandate deserves to be terminated as he has become de-jure and de-facto unable to perform his functions.

3. Learned counsel submits that the sole arbitrator has acted in a manner which cannot be said to be fair and impartial. The request for reference of dispute was made by the claimant before this Court claiming an amount of Rs. 35.48 crores. However, after appointment of the arbitrator he submitted a claim of Rs. 188.28 crores. On 07.10.2017, the sole arbitrator directed to deposit a demand draft of Rs. 10 lakhs from both the parties which was not submitted on 07.10.2017, where after, last opportunity was given to deposit the amount as a first installment. The same was deposited after deducting T.D.S. on 16.01.2018 by the petitioner but the arbitrator directed the petitioner to deposit the remaining 10,000 amount also. The petitioners contention of the fees required to be paid as per the sixth slab of the IV Schedule as added vide amendment of 2015 was not accepted by the sole arbitrator. A review application was filed which too was rejected by the arbitrator and a cost of Rs. 25,000 was further imposed on the petitioner along with second installment of fees failing which the statement of defence was to be rejected. The claimant on the other hand readily agreed to pay the high fees and made payment of Rs. 21 lakhs to the sole arbitrator.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner had an apprehension of the sole arbitrator being prejudiced against the petitioner as it directed for rejecting the statement of defence if the fees is not deposited. Although, there is no such provision available to him under the Act of 1996. Imposing of cost for non-payment of fees also could not have made.

5. The said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by filing writ application before this Court bearing CWJC No. 23934/2018. The Court granted an interim protection and vide order dated 17.10.2019 issued notices to the Secretary of the sole arbitrator. However, the sole arbitrator who is a former Judge of this Court, chose to appear himself before the Court.

6. Although, there is bar contained in Article 220 of the Constitution for him to appear before the same Court where he has been a Judge and the case was therefore adjourned. Learned counsel contended that the same reflects the obsession of the arbitrator for the higher fees. Thereafter, another writ petition CWJC No.