Point of Law: Arbitration - Appealable orders - extraordinary jurisdiction - High Courts have proceeded on basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India - Any order passed by arbitral tribunal is capable of being Corrected by High Court Under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India. Such an intervention by High Courts is not permissible.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 13469 of 2021 dated 12.7.2021.

2. Appellant is the Project Director of National Highways Authority of India, for the Project Implementation Unit, Thiruvananthapuram. National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as NHAI) is an authority constituted under the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988. It is entrusted with the functions of developing, maintaining and managing the National Highways and any other highways vested in or entrusted to it by the Government.

3. Respondent No. 1 herein is the writ petitioner, 2nd respondent is the Arbitrator and District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, who is entrusted with the powers under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1956), to decide the compensation payable to the parties, if they are aggrieved by the decision of the 3rd respondent/Special Deputy Collector and Competent Authority Land Acquisition. Respondent No. 4 is the Executive Engineer for the National Highway division.

4. Case of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 is that for the purpose of widening the National Highway to 4/6 lane, property belonging to him in R.S. 226/31 in Block 11 of Kazhakuttom Village, together with building Nos. TC 1/3363, 3364 and 3365 were acquired. After acquisition, compensation was determined and communicated to the writ petitioner vide Exhibit P1 notice of award.

5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, writ petitioner preferred Exhibit P2 Arbitration Application No. 293/2020 before the 2nd respondent, viz. The Special Deputy Collector L.A. N.H. and Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, National Highway, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Pending the said application, petitioner also moved an application for appointment of an advocate Commissioner and an expert to value the buildings and sought for reliefs invoking Sections 26 and 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1996).

6. Initially, vide Exhibit P5 judgment dated 5.3.2021, writ court passed orders directing the District Collector and Arbitrator for Land Acquisition, Thiruvananthapuram, to take up the applications for consideration and pass orders on the application filed for appointment of an expert preferably, one, who is agreeable to both parties. Pursuant to Exhibit-P5 judgment, by Exhibit P7 proceedings dated 17.01.2021, the Arbitrator and District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, the 2nd respondent herein, passed orders appointing the Executive Engineer (Building), PWD, Thiruvananthapuram, as the expert for reassessing the value of the buildings located in 01.08 Ares of land in Re-survey No. 226/31 (LA Resurvey No. 226/43) of Block No. 11 of Kazhakoottam village, Thiruvananthapuram, and to submit a report. Challenging the said proceedings issued by the Arbitrator, the writ petition was filed for the following reliefs:

(i) That all records leading to Exhibit-P7 proceedings dated 17.06.2021 shall be called to this Court and a writ of Certiorari be passed quashing the same.

(ii) A Writ of Mandamus, order or direction be passed directing the 1st respondent to appoint any expert from the panel submitted by the petitioner in the application or any other independent expert who is well versed in valuation of building.

7. After hearing the parties, writ court, by judgment dated 12.07.2021, disposed of W.P. (C) No. 13469 of 2021, as under:

“2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appointment of an official of the Government as the expert will prejudice his rights. It is seen from Ext.P3 memo filed before the 1st respondent that the petitioner had suggested the names of 2 retired Executive Engineers from the Public Works Department as experts.

3. In the light of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice will be served, if the