IMPORTANT POINT
The Limitation Act applies to arbitration under the National Highways Act, and a writ petition is maintainable when an Arbitrator refuses to entertain an application.

ORDER :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The National Highway Authority, the appellant in the Writ Appeal and the writ petitioner, who was the respondent in the writ appeal, have come up with these review petitions. We considered two questions in the writ appeal filed by the National Highway which are as follows;

1) Whether the Limitation Act would apply for arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956.

2) Whether the writ petition is maintainable challenging a decision of the Arbitrator under the National Highway Act.

2. In the writ appeal, we answered the first question in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner, who was the claimant and we answered the second question in favour of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) holding that the writ petition is not maintainable challenging an award of the Arbitrator. The NHAI have come up with the review placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.226 of 2015, K.Leela Vs. The District Collector [2015(2) KHC 813] wherein this Court considered the question relating to the limitation in regard to the arbitration and held as follows:

“19. While considering the question of limitation, what will be the period for making a claim for higher compensation under the NH Act is also germane for consideration. As there is no specific period provided for making such a claim necessarily the residuary clause under Article 113 has to be applied, which is three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. In this case, right to sue accrued when the amount is determined by the competent authority under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act, i.e. on 16/04/2010. If the parties desire to proceed for arbitration, they have to file an application for referring the dispute for arbitration in terms of sub-section (5) which is akin to filing a suit within three years from the date when the amount is determined by the competent authority and informed to the land owner. If no such steps are taken within the said period, the Arbitrator is entitled to reject the claim as barred by limitation.

20. Though Arbitration under the NH Act is statutory, in so far as the 1996 Act is made applicable to such Arbitration, the Limitation Act equally applies and if under normal circumstances, a request to refer the dispute to Arbitration is filed beyond time, that is after a period of three years from the date on which the right to sue accrued, the Arbitration has to be held to be beyond the period of limitation. The Apex Court has held that even in a petition filed under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, it shall be open for the Chief Justice or the designated Judge to verify whether the claim is hopelessly barred by limitation. Under such circumstances, it cannot be contended by the appellant that Limitation Act has no application at all.”

3. This is the view contrary to our view in the writ appeal judgment. We note that the Division Bench in Leela's case (supra) had not adverted to Section 2(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which specifically excluded applicability of limitation to arbitration under any other enactment. That means the Parliament consciously laid the law to exclude the applicability of limitation to arbitration under any other enactment. Since Leela's case(supra), this Court had no occasion to consider Section 2(4) of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We are of the view that the judgment in Leela's case(supra) to the extent holding that specific clause of Limitation Act would apply to the arbitration is per incuriam as it was laid ignoring the statutory provision.

4. In regard to the second question of the maintainability of the writ petition, we treated impugned order in the writ petition as an award. We were under the impression while disposing of the appeal that what was questioned before this Court was an award of the District Collector, who is the Arbitrator constituted under the National Highway Act.

5. We have gone through Ext.P3 communication issued to