The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court directed the dispute to be referred to arbitration based on the recent principles adopted by the Governmental concerns in regard to resolution of disputes through arbitration and also having regard to the policy adopted by the Government of India that Alternative Dispute Resolution methods will have to be encouraged. The court held that the respondents being instrumentalities of the State owe a duty to the appellant imposed on them under the Constitution and the law and therefore, issued a writ of mandamus to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Heard Mr. S. Parameswaran for the appellant in W.A. No. 2505 of 1999 and the 1st respondent in W.A. No. 2572 of 1999, and Mr. U.K. Ramakrishnan for the appellant in W.A. No. 2572 of 1999 and respondents 1 and 2 in W.A. No. 2505 of 1999.

2. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment dated 12.10.1999 in O.P. No. 6659 of 1998. The appellant in W.A. No. 2505 of 1999 (Koshy Varghese) filed the original petition O.P.No. 6659 of 1998 for the following reliefs:

"(A) A writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing the respondents to refer the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents referred to supra to arbitration to be arbitrated upon by any one among the panel of arbitrators submitted by the petitioner or by any other Retd. High Court Judge to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court as Arbitrator; or in the alternative;

(B) A writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing the respondents to order convening of a High Power Committee immediately and in any case within one month and to direct it to consider the claims of the petitioner and give him a personal hearing and thereafter to resolve the dispute within a reasonable period of four months;

and

(C) Such other writ, direction or order as is deemed fit, just, proper and necessary by this Hon'ble Court and as is prayed for pendente lite by the petitioner on the facts and in the circumstances of the case."

Though a detailed counter affidavit and a rejoinder has been filed by the respective parties, there is no need to refer to the facts mentioned in the respective affidavits.

3. The short facts are that the Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. invited tenders for doing the work of waste removal from its Soda Recovery Plant, Newsprint Nagar, Vellore, Kottayam District for a period of two years from 1.12.1990 under Ext. PI tender notice. The appellant Koshy Varghese submitted quotation in response to the tender notice. His quotation was accepted by the Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. and a contract was entered into between the parties. The work order was also issued to him under Ext. P2. It is submitted by the appellant that though he had engaged and keep on the roll several workers trained and experienced in this type of work at considerable expense and secured and made available four heavy vehicles for the purpose by investing over Rs. 12 lakhs, the 2nd respondent, under some pretext or the other, failed to discharge its obligation and that the legitimate expectations of the appellant were betrayed and shattered by the respondents. The latter resorted to change on the mode of manufacture after entrusting the contract work to the appellant. Several other allegations have been made against the second respondent in the Original Petition. It is the grievance of the appellant that the appellant has made several representations commencing from 16.12.1991 onwards, but there was no proper response to the representations and the memorandum submitted. Several legal notices were also issued by the appellant through his advocates. In this context, it is brought to our notice that though in all the contracts of the 2nd respondent Arbitration clause used to be inserted, in the present case this, however, was not done. The appellant on detecting it requested the 2nd respondent to adopt a uniform policy in this regard. Under such circumstances, the appellant felt that it is beneficial and advisable for all parties concerned to resolve to arbitration for the resolution of disputes in order to minimise expenses and expenditure of time. It is also brought to our notice that the 3rd respondent in the Original Petition, Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Heavy Industries, has issued instructions in this direction to all the Public Sector Enterprises in the country and as a prelude to this the Bureau of Public Enterprises attached to the' Ministry of Industry attached to the Government of India issued an office memorandum me