A petitioner must comply with the limitations set in the relevant statutory provisions and cannot seek to bypass these requirements through writ petitions.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a. To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refer Exhibit-P3 application for Arbitration.

b. Issue such other order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the fact and circumstance of the case.”[SIC]

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, even though an application is filed for referring the matter to the Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 , the same is not considered. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent in which it is clearly stated that, no such petition is received in that office. Moreover, the 1st respondent, National Highway authority also filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent is extracted hereunder:

“7. Sec. 3G (5) of the NH Act enshrines that if the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to the parties the amount shall, on an application by the parties, be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. The Central Government has appointed the District Collector, Thrissur as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has re-determined the amount of compensation following the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, in most of the Arbitration cases filed before it by the aggrieved parties from Thoravu Village. The time limit for filing arbitration petition before the Arbitrator is three years from the date of award by the 2nd respondent. There is no provision for the referring the matter for arbitration by the 2nd respondent, on an application to it by the affected parties. The writ petitioner had not filed any arbitration petition to the Arbitrator with in the period of three years after the passing of Ext.P1. This respondent has no knowledge regarding the filing of Ext.P3 before the 2nd respondent or the further action taken on it by the 2nd respondent. There is no provision under the NH Act 1956 for the filing of an Arbitration application before the 2nd respondent for it to refer the same to the Arbitrator. If the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P1 award, he should have filed an application within the limitation period before the Arbitrator appointed under the NH Act 1956. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, to some how wriggle out of the limitation period, after Ext.P1 has become final, has approached this Hon'ble Court for enhancement invoking the writ jurisdiction, ignoring the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act

1996. The above writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.”

In the light of the above counter affidavit, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Therefore, this Writ petition is dismissed.