ORDER

This O.P. had been filed challenging the Impugned Award dated

18.01.2022 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator nominated under the order dated 11.03.2021 passed in W.A.No.03 of 2021.

2. Heard Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.G.R.Associates for the petitioner and Mr.Fr.Xavier Arul Raj, Senior Counsel for Ms.A.Arul Mary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein was a successful bidder for the Aircondition City services on Anna International Kamaraj Domestic Airport Terminal. He had been extending such services from the year 1987 and was the successful tenderer in the year 1988, 1998 & 2007. As per the term of contract, there was an annual license fee with an escalation of 10% per annum. As per the contract, Licence fee was fixed at Rs.393.60 per Sq.Mt per annum. However, vide circular dated 06.05.2008, the license fee for the land and space for a period of three years from 01.04.2008 to 31.11.2011 was revised unilaterally by fixing the rent at the rate of Rs.1952/- per Sq.Mt per annum + 20% more in case of pay demand and the same was indicated to the petitioner calling upon him to pay a total sum of Rs.2342.40/- per Sq.Mt per annum. The said circular was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.19414 of 2008 and by judgment dated 20.12.2019, the circular was quashed and remanded to the respondent for a fresh consideration. He would submit that without considering afresh the claim made by the petitioner, the respondents had preferred an Intra-Court Appeal in W.A.No.3 of

2021.

4. The Division Bench of this Court considering a clause of arbitration available in the agreement between the parties suggested the nomination of an Arbitrator for deciding the dispute. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 11.03.2021, this Court by consent had appointed a retired Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator particularly to decide the dispute relating to the fixation of the rental charges. During the arbitration proceedings, a question of scope of arbitration arose and hence, the Arbitrator had directed the parties to seek a clarification with regard to the scope of the arbitral proceedings. An application was filed by the petitioner seeking for a clarification and a Division Bench of this Court had held that no clarification as sought is necessary, as it was open to the learned Arbitrator to interpret and assess as to whether the order quashing the circular upon being appealed against and upon a consent, an order being passed thereon may be regarded as final or not. He would submit that the learned Arbitrator by relying upon the observation made by the Division Bench, wherein the Division Bench had observed that when an appeal being preferred, the finality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge was undone in the course of appeal, since the parties had agreed to refer all their disputes to arbitration. The learned Arbitrator relying upon the observation had held that by the orders of the Division Bench, the circular remain intact and such circular would be a circular in rem and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be aggrieved. The learned Arbitrator had also concluded that when a circular is in rem, the petitioner cannot seek to challenge the same as if it is a circular in personam and had given a finding that there was no arbitrariness in the circular issued by the respondents. He would submit that the learned Arbitrator failed to read the orders of the Division Bench dated 11.03.2021 & 12.11.2021 conjunctively. He would submit what was referred to the learned Arbitrator was the dispute relating to the fixation of rental charges and the subsequent order of the Division Bench had held that the learned Arbitrator will decide upon the finality of the learned Single Judge's order. He would submit that the learned Arbitrator had failed to decide on the finality of the order quashing the circular and also failed