The alternative dispute resolution mechanism of arbitration inter alia has the objective of expeditious resolution of commercial disputes. This objective is often breached by the manner in which the arbitration proceedings carry on. We are confronted with the factual situation where the statement of claim itself was not filed resulting in the learned Arbitrator / the second respondent exercising powers under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and terminating the proceedings. These proceedings were sought to be reopened by the first respondent / original claimant by filing an application, the maintainability of which was objected to by the petitioner without even filing a reply on the ground that once the Arbitrator has terminated the mandate, he had become functus officio. The Arbitrator, however, opined to the contrary vide the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 that there was an implied power of procedural review which was sought to be exercised in respect of the prayer made for recalling the order of termination of the proceedings and calling upon the petitioner to file a counter on merits. The question which, thus, arises for consideration is whether an Arbitrator actually becomes functus officio and incapable of recalling such an order terminating the proceedings.

2. The factual matrix required for determination of the aforesaid legal issue is limited in its scope. A contract agreement dated 31.03.2010 was entered into by the petitioner with the first respondent / claimant for purposes of handling at site stores/storage yard, transportation to site of work, erection, testing and commissioning of 67.5 MW STG with associated auxillaries and 1 No.Turbo Blower with its auxillaries including supply and application of final painting for STG unit 5 (STG-5) and Turbo Blower of Unit 4 (TB-4). This contract agreement was, however, shortclosed by the petitioner. The contract contains an arbitration clause 2.36 requiring reference to sole arbitration of General Manager or his nominee of the petitioner. The first respondent / claimant invoked the arbitration clause on 13.06.2012 eliciting no reply and resulting in O.P.No.799 of 2012 being filed under Section 11 (6) of the said Act, which was allowed vide an order dated 06.03.2015 appointing the second respondent as the Sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator commenced the proceedings and on 25.04.2015 granted time to the first respondent / claimant to file the statement of claim by 31.07.2015. No statement of claim was filed and thus, the learned Arbitrator sent an email to the counsel for the first respondent on 26.08.2015 as a reminder, to which a response was received vide email dated 27.08.2015 informing that the counsel was not getting any communication from the first respondent / claimant and that he would inform the party accordingly. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sent an email dated 29.08.2015 seeking an order from the learned Arbitrator to terminate the arbitration proceedings under Section 25 (a) of the said Act. Since the statement of claim was still not filed, an email was sent on 03.10.2015 by the learned Arbitrator to the counsel for the first respondent that if no information was received on or before 15th of October, 2015, the proceedings would be terminated. The counsel for the first respondent / claimant vide email dated 03.10.2015 informed that there had been no receipt of information from his client and he would communicate the matter, which was soon followed by a communication requesting one (1) week's time to file the statement of claim on or before 19.10.2015, which was acceded to. Since still no statement of claim was filed, the learned Arbitrator vide order dated 24.10.2015, terminated the proceedings on the ground that the first respondent / claimant apparently h