IMPORTANT POINT
The decision of an Adjudicator is binding if not challenged within the stipulated time, emphasizing the importance of contractual dispute resolution mechanisms.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

1. Appellants are the respondents in W.P. (C) No. 19299 of 2021. The respondent herein approached this Court by filing the writ petition praying mainly for a direction to the 2nd appellant to calculate, sanction and disburse the amount as per the Adjudicator's decision with respect to the disputes notified as per claim (m) and (n) in Ext.P7 and decided by the Adjudicator by Ext.P12 within a time frame and for interest on the said amount.

2. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in civil construction works was awarded with a work by the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL). Name of the work is “DRIP-Idukki Hydro Electric Project-Rehabilitation including remedial measures and basic facilities- improvement of approach roads to Idukki and Cheruthoni Dam - (Part-II works)”. Agreement was executed on 16.6.2016. The agreement contains an adjudication clause. As per the said clause if the parties to the contract notified a dispute, same shall be referred to an Adjudicator at the first instance. Whenever the Adjudicator takes decisions, either party may refer the decision of the Adjudicator for arbitration within 28 days of the Adjudicator's decision. If no reference is made for arbitration within 28 days, the decision of the Adjudicator will be final and binding.

3. After completing the works on 14.2.2018 the respondent notified a dispute on 08.01.2019 before the Adjudicator. The dispute included 25 claims under separate and distinct heads. The Adjudicator, by Ext.P7, decided claims under (m) and (n) in favour of the respondent. The respondent referred the remaining matters for arbitration by the Arbitral Tribunal. KSEBL did not choose to approach the Arbitral Tribunal against the claims decided in favour of the respondent. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, the 2nd appellant filed a defence statement. However, no counter claim against granting of claims under (m) and (n) in favour of the respondent was raised. On 06.02.2021, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an award. The respondent preferred the writ petition aggrieved by non-quantification and disbursal of the claims allowed in its favour by the Adjudicator. The appellants resisted the writ petition. According to the appellants, the Adjudicator's proceedings were null and void since the contractors' complaints were submitted much beyond 14 days’ time limit under Clause 24 of the agreement. It was also contended that the Adjudicator failed to consider claims (m) and (n) in a proper manner and the decision of the Adjudicator cannot be implemented as there is no quantification of the amount to be paid. Further contention of the appellants is that the Adjudicator's decision is no more relevant as the Arbitral Tribunal has passed an award subsequently. According to the appellants, if the decision rendered by the Adjudicator in favour of a party is not accepted by other party, the dispute would not get crystallized and the parties will have to go by the arbitration clause. Decision rendered by the Adjudicator is only a procedural order preceding the arbitration proceedings. The appellants never accepted the authority of the Adjudicator as well as his decision. The defence statement preferred before the Arbitral Tribunal clearly shows that the appellants never accepted the decision of the Adjudicator. The appellants therefore contended that the prayer in the writ petition cannot be allowed and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides held that if any of the parties had any grievance against the decision of the Adjudicator, the remedy was to refer the matter for arbitration within a period of 28 days. The learned Single Judge found that the KSEBL did not challenge the decision of the Adjudicator with respect to claims (m) and (n) by referring the same for arbitration. Plea of the appellants that the respondent ought to have sought the approval of the Arbitrator regarding the claims decided by the Adjudicator in