HC Cannot Issue Writ To Compel Arbitrator To Decide Dispute After Expiration Of His Mandate: Allahabad High Court

A Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh observed that “The issuance of a mandamus directing the arbitrator to decide the case within a time-bound period, when his mandate has already expired, would amount to extending the arbitrator's mandate through the backdoor. This would be contrary to the express provisions of Section 29A (4) which vests such power exclusively in the competent civil court.”

The court made these observations while dismissing eight writ petitions filed by landowners whose properties had been acquired by the Central Government for widening and development of the Gorakhpur section of National Highway-24 under the Bharatmala Pariyojana, pursuant to government notice on 14 July 2022. The petitioners argued that the compensation assessed by the competent authority was arbitrary and despite filing a claim petition on 17 May 2023, no decision had been taken for more than two years.

It was argued that due to the inaction on the arbitrator's part in adjudication of their claims, they were compelled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court to compel the arbitrator to decide the dispute in time.

The bench held that such a request was jurisdictionally barred as the provisions of Arbitration Act apply to the National Highways Act and noted that “once the statutory period prescribed under Section 29A has expired, the mandate of the arbitrator stands exhausted, and he becomes functus officio.” It was emphasized that the arbitrator loses the authority to continue with the arbitral proceedings unless the mandate is first restored by the competent civil court exercising original civil jurisdiction.

The court observed that the definition of 'Court' under the Arbitration Act is limited to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or a High Court with ordinary original civil jurisdiction and the High Court did not exercise such jurisdiction. It noted, “When the statute itself prescribes a specific forum and a specific mechanism for redressal of a particular grievance, the High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, must be extremely cautious not to usurp the jurisdiction vested in the statutory forum.”

The High Court noted that the twelve-month period for making the arbitral award, which was extendable by six months by consent of the parties, had expired in four petitions. It noted that even in the remaining four cases where the period under Section 29A had not yet expired, the bench refused invoking its writ jurisdiction. It observed:

“If this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, compels the arbitrator to decide the matter without his mandate being validly extended by the competent court, it would prejudice the rights of the parties and would expose the eventual award to challenge on the ground that it was made by an arbitrator whose mandate had expired.”

Concluding that the petitions were not maintainable regardless of the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the Court dismissed the petitions. It clarified that the dismissal did not preclude the landowners from approaching the competent civil court for extending the mandate of the arbitrator.

Case Title: Suryadev Pathak vs Union of India & 4 others

Case Number: WRIT – C No. – 28215 of 2025

For Petitioner: Advocate Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi

For Respondents: A.s.g.i Anuj Agrawal, C.S.C., Mahendra Pratap, Pranjal Mehrotra, Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal