Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.:- Shri Suchha Ram Ladhar/respondent No.4 belongs to the Indian Administrative Service cadre and seeks to substantively augment his income by claiming the entitlement to an arbitrator’s fee while performing the task of an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the NHA Act”) while holding the post of the Divisional Commissioner in Jalandhar and Patiala Divisions. It is this act of respondent No.4 which gave rise to some adverse publicity in the media that an exorbitant amount is being charged as arbitration fee without prior permission of either the State or Central Government in violation of the service rules. This culminated in filing of a public interest litigation by the petitioner, an Advocate, seeking appropriate criminal/ departmental action against respondent No.4 for his conduct and for recovery of the entire amount of arbitration fee charged.

2. The petitioner states that the respondent No.4 claims entitlement to the arbitration fee on the basis of own interpretation of Section 31(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”). I