Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 3148
2025 KER 70465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. Jayachandran, J.
Adarsh R.C – Petitioner
Versus
The National Highways Authority Of India Represented By Its Project Director And Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4160 of 2025
Decided On : 22-09-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Sri.Rajesh. K.Raju, Shri.Mohapraseed Mohan
For the Respondent : Adv. Shri.Vishnu Pradeep, Cgc, Sri.Ajith Viswanathan, Gp
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU, SHRI.MOHAPRASEED MOHAN
For the Respondents: SHRI.VISHNU PRADEEP, CGC, SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, GP
A non-speaking order by an arbitral tribunal violates natural justice principles and must be reasoned to uphold fairness in proceedings.
Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(5) & 26 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Petitioner’s application for expert appointment to assess building damage rejected without reasons - Violation of natural justice due to non-reasoned order - Remanded to Arbitrator for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Natural Justice - Implicit requirement of reasoned order - Courts ensure adherence to principles of natural justice in arbitral proceedings. (Paras 3, 5)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenge an order from the Arbitral Tribunal which dismissed their request for appointing an expert to evaluate damage following land acquisition, citing valuation was already conducted by authorities.
Findings of Court:
The order was set aside for lack of reasons, reiterating the necessity of a reasoned decision in administrative actions impacting rights.
Issues: Key questions addressed included the validity of non-reasoned orders and the adherence to natural justice principles during arbitral proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a non-speaking order infringes natural justice and that parties deserve opportunities to present their cases substantively.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; order set aside and remanded to Arbitrator for reconsideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of arbitral order due to expert appointment rejection. (Para 1) |
| 2. court observations emphasize importance of reasoned orders in arbitral decisions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
C. Jayachandran, J.
Ext.P5 is under challenge in this Writ Petition, which is an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 , which rejected the petitioner’s application for appointing an expert under Section 26 of the Act, to assess the injurious affectation of the building, as also, such other matters set out in the interim application.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, and the learned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 is the award passed pursuant to the acquisition made in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘2013 Act’). Ext.P2 is an application preferred by the petitioner for redetermination of the compensation award before the Arbitrator/2nd respondent. Ext.P3 is the subject application preferred by the petitioner for the appointment of an expert. This was filed on the premise that the 1st floor of the building, a residential one, was substantially destroyed, especially with respect to the kitchen, the front portion and also the gate. In order to ascertain the injurious affectation on that count, the subject application Ext.P3 was filed for appointment of an expert. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation for injurious affectation in terms of Section 28 of the 2013 Act. However, by the impugned Ext.P5 order, the same is rejected without assigning any reason, is the grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The solitary reason which is seen stated in the interim order vide Ext.P5 is that structures have been valued by the National Highway Authority of India, for which reason, no further assessment of the damage to the building is required.
4. Learned counsel would elaborate that, even if it is assumed that there is a statutory remedy, the impugned Ext.P5 order is one which does not conform to the principles of natural justice. According to the learned counsel, there are three concomitants which come within the concept of natural justice. The first is a case where a person is condemned unheard; the second, is that one cannot be a judge in his own cause; and the third, which is the relevant and important one in the present context, mandates a reasoned order. Ext.P5 falls short of the requirement of a reasoned order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is violation of natural justice, in which case, a Writ Petition under Article 226 is quite maintainable, de hors the statutory remedy if any.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent would seriously oppose the said submissions. Going by a Bench decision of this Court in National Highway Authority of India v. Jabeena Beevi and others (W.A.No.961/2021 dated 03.08.2021), the petitioner cannot approach this Court under Article 226, when he has got a clear and specific statutory remedy either in terms of Section 37 or under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . Learned counsel would also rely on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.B.P. & Co. v. Pattel Engineering Ltd., [2005 (8) SCC 618] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned not to entertain challenges under Article 226 from interim orders etc, since there exists a clear and specific statutory remedy. Paragraph No.45 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“45. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged Under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We see no warran
