JUDGMENT :

A parcel of land measuring 0.0026 hectares, comprised in resurvey No.84/1A (Old Survey No.84/6) of Kunhimangalam Village, Kannur District, owned by the petitioners, a husband and wife, was acquired by the 2nd respondent, the Competent Authority, for the purpose of widening of National Highway-66. The Competent Authority determined the compensation due to the petitioners under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NH Act' for short) and passed an award on 28.06.2018. Aggrieved by the amount determined by the Competent Authority, the petitioners preferred Ext. P1 application under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act. The said application was dismissed by the 1st respondent, the Arbitrator, by Ext. P2 order dated 17.06.2023 stating that the petitioners have failed to produce the copy of the award, which is mandatory as stipulated in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act' for short). Aggrieved by Ext. P2, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

2. It is stated that Ext. P1 application was filed on 01.03.2019 and was posted before the Arbitrator for the first time on 17.12.2022 and, on the said day, there was no sitting. The application was then posted to 07.01.2023 and then to 01.04.2023 for the counter statement of the respondents, namely the Competent Authority and the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). No counter statements were filed and the application was posted to 17.06.2023, on which date the impugned order was passed.

3. Sri. Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, Ext. P2 order is arbitrary and is passed contrary to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. It is further contended that the arbitration application cannot be rejected on technical grounds and since the scope of challenge to the arbitral award under the Arbitration Act is very limited, this Court has to interfere in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioners are senior citizens hailing from a remote village of Kannur District and they are not familiar with the provisions of law and instead of outrightly dismissing the application, the Arbitrator ought to have given them a chance to produce the copy of the award and to contest the application on merits.

4. Per contra, Sri. B.G. Bidan Chandran, the learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, would contend that, the production of copy of the award along with the arbitration application is mandatory and without producing the same, the arbitration application itself is not maintainable. Since the copy of the award was not produced along with the application, the Arbitrator has rightly declined jurisdiction and once the Arbitrator has declined jurisdiction, the remedy of the petitioners lies under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act. Sri. Bidan Chandran relied on the decision of the Apex Court in SBP and Co v. Patel Engineering Ltd and Another [(2005) 8 SCC 618 : AIR 2006 SC 450 : 2005 KHC 1909] and Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Limited & another [(2022) 1 SCC 75 : 2021 KHC 6007] to contend that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution with arbitral process is not permissible.

5. Sri. Bimal K. Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the Arbitrator and the Competent Authority, submits that the Deputy Collector (LA) had informed the petitioners by letter dated 06.09.2019 that the arbitration application is defective as they have not produced the copy of the award and despite such intimation, the petitioners have not produced the copy of the award. Sri. Bimal contends that, Ext. P2 being an arbitral award, the remedy of the petitioners is to invoke the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

6. Sri. Nambisan submits that the petitioners have not received the letter stated to have been sent by the Deputy Collector (LA) on beh