Arbitrators should dispose of applications for review under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act expeditiously, especially when the applicant is elderly and the application has been pending for a significant period.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is an octogenarian, has approached this Court with a limited plea that the 2nd respondent, who is the competent Arbitrator under the provisions of the National Highways Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NH Act’ for short), be directed to take up and dispose of Ext.P3 application filed by him under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the said Act within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Sri.Pushparajan Kodoth – learned counsel for the petitioner, further explained that his client is 83 years old and that Ext.P3 was preferred by him as early as on 04.01.2020. He added that even though his client was called for a hearing once before, it was cancelled because the 3rd respondent – Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA for short) appointed under the ‘NH Act’, had some inconvenience. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that 2nd respondent be directed to complete the proceedings on Ext.P3 within a short time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Mable C.Kurian, submitted that since the petitioner says that Ext.P3 application has been pending for nearly two years, 2nd respondent is willing to consider and dispose of the same, after following due procedure and after hearing him, as also the competent Authority of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), without any further delay.

4. Sri.Mathews K.Philip – learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, did not stand in the way of the request of the petitioner, but submitted that 2nd respondent may be directed to hear his client also before a final decision is taken on Ext.P3.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 2nd respondent – District Collector, to take up Ext.P3 application of the petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording him or his authorized representative, as also the competent Authority of the NHAI, an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that I have fixed the time frame as three months, because the petitioner says that his application has been pending for nearly two years and also taking into account his advanced age.

At this time, Sri.Pushparajan Kodoth – learned counsel for the petitioner, requested that his client may also be permitted to impel additional pleadings before the Arbitrator. Obviously, if the petitioner makes such pleadings without any delay and within a period of two weeks from today, same will also be considered by the Arbitrator in terms of the afore directions.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE RR/akv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 166/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DT. 18.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER SECTION 3G OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 18.12.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 3E RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 3E OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 4.1.2020 FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 3G(5) OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.

4.1.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.

23.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE

3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT.

17.02.2021.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.

23.11.2021.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE