IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 4978 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

DAKSHAYANI M.P.

AGED 74 YEARS, W/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, MATHRADAN PUTHIYAVEETTIL, MPV HOUSE, EDAT.P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670327 BY ADVS.

M.SASINDRAN SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN RESPONDENTS:

1 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, L.A., NHAI, KANNUR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670141

2 THE PROJECT OFFICER (NHAI)

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, BUILDING NO.3460/WARD NO.46, 'ZAHIRA', NEAR DINESH AUDITORIUM, P.O. CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002

3 THE ARBITRATOR L.A., NH & THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, COLLECTORATE ROAD, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002 BY ADVS.

SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE – GP SRI.B.G.BIDAN CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Exts.P4 and P5 as per which, her application for Arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act ('NHAI Act', for short), has been rejected by the 3^rd respondent – Arbitrator, saying that she has failed to produce the documents required, in spite of reminders.

2. Sri.M.Sasindran – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently controverted the statements in Ext.P4, saying that the rejection of the application of his client, without entering into the merits and that too on technical reasons, which are unsubstantiated, is illegal and unlawful. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P4 and the consequential Ext.P5 be set aside; and the 3^rd respondent be directed to reconsider the matter, after affording his client an opportunity of producing all necessary documents. He explained that he is making this request because, before Ext.P4, no effective notice had been issued to his client, detailing the exact documents that were required; and, therefore, that what is stated in Ext.P4 can only be seen to be amorphous.

3. Sri.B.G.Bidan Chandran – learned counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that his client has no role to play in this controversy because, it is between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. He, however, added that if this Court is inclined to direct reconsideration by the 3^rd respondent, then his client may also be directed to be heard, because they surely have an interest against the claim of the petitioner.

4. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3, in response, submitted that, as evident from Ext.P4, the 3^rd respondent has been incapacitated from considering the case of the petitioner because, she did not produce all the documents as are required. He submitted that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, the said Authority is willing to reconsider the matter, subject to the laws of limitation, provided the petitioner produces all necessary documents – the list of which he says will be made available to her, if she appears before the said Authority, on a date to be fixed by this Court.

5. When I consider and evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is clear that Ext.P4 has rejected the petitioner's claim on technical reasons, saying that she has not produced relevant documents; which, however, is countered by her learned counsel – Sri.M.Sasindran, saying that she was never told which are the documents to be actually produced.

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that it will be necessary that the petitioner be given another opportunity to produce documents as are necessary; and which should be intimated to her by the 3^rd respondent appropriately.

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered with the following directions:

(a) Ext.P4 and the consequential Ext.P5 is set aside.

(b) The petitioner is directed to appear before the 3^rd respondent at 11 a.m. On 28.02.2024; on which day, the said Authority will inform her, through an appropriate proceedi