Bombay High Court
HANUMANT S/O BHANUDAS GAWALIversusTHE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTONS )CENTRAL RAILWAY SOLAPUR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petitions are dismissed as there is no purpose in keeping them pending while the arbitration petitions are still before the concerned authority.
Summary
The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of pending arbitration petitions concerning compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. The court noted that the competent authority had already passed an award and that the petitioners could approach the appointed arbitrator for enhancement of compensation under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioners were asked to file additional affidavits clarifying the chronology after the award and the steps taken for arbitration. When the petitions were later listed, the petitioners failed to appear and later sought to amend the petitions to correct the improper styling under Section 34. The court held that, since the arbitration petitions were still pending and amendment was being sought, there was no purpose in keeping the writ petitions alive. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to file fresh writ petitions if the amendment is granted.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable to compel expeditious disposal of arbitration petitions pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Whether the petitioners should first pursue the arbitration remedy before approaching the High Court.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- arbitration
- Section 34
- compensation
- Railways Act
- jurisdiction
- dismissal
Judgment
1
11-wp-5601-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5601 OF 2026
Hanumant Bhanudas Gawali …Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Constructions)
Central Railway, Solapur and Others …Respondents
VISHAL
SUBHASH WITH
PAREKAR
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5771 OF 2026
PAREKAR
Date: 2026.09.29
17:37:52 +0530
Prabha Pawankumar Agrawal …Petitioner
Versus
The Competent Authority and Sub
Divisional Officer and Others …Respondents
******
Mr. R.V. Gunale (through VC) i/b. Mr. Abhijeet Khade, for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Tanu Bhatia, AGP, for the State in WP No. 5601 of 2026.
Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for the State in WP No. 5771 of 2026.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. On 21.07.2026, this Court had passed the following order in
these petitions:
. By these petitions, the petitioners are seeking a direction
against respondent No.5 for deciding pending arbitration
petitions.
Vishal Parekar ….1
2
11-wp-5601-2026.doc
2] But, the documents on record show that the Competent
Authority i.e. the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) has passed
the award. Thereafter, as per the provisions of the Railways Act,
1989, if the petitioners were dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, they could approach the Arbitrator appointed by
the Central Government, for seeking enhancement of
compensation. But, the document at Exhibit ‘B’ shows that it is
styled as a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and that it has been filed before the office
of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners will have
to explain, as to why a petition under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been filed, if the arbitration
proceeding itself is pending before the Arbitrator.
3] The petitioners are directed to file additional affidavits in both
these petitions, clarifying the position on facts, by giving
chronology of events after the award was passed by the
Competent Authority and as to the manner in which, the
petitioners sought arbitration before the Arbitrator appointed by
the Central Government for enhancement of compensation.
4] The additional affidavits shall be filed within two weeks from
today.
5] List these petitions for further consideration in the category of
‘fresh matters’ on 12th August 2026.
2. Thereafter, the petitions were listed on 12.08.2026, when
adjournment was sought on the ground of personal difficulty of the
counsel for the petitioners. On 08.09.2026, when these petitions were
listed, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners and,
therefore, we listed these petitions today under the caption 'For
Dismissal'.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions
submits that upon noticing the mistake in styling as the arbitration
Vishal Parekar ….2
3
11-wp-5601-2026.doc
petitions as petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, a pursis is now filed before the concerned
authority seeking to amend the said petitions.
4. It is to be noted that these writ petitions have been filed seeking
a direction for expeditious disposal of the arbitration petitions.
5. We are of the opinion that when the arbitration petitions are
pending before the concerned authority in the backdrop of
amendment being sought by the petitioners, there is no purpose of
keeping the present writ petitions pending. It is to be noted that the
arbitration petitions have been shown as petitions filed under Section
34 of the aforesaid Act, when no award has yet been passed by the
concerned authority.
6. In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed with
liberty to the petitioners to file fresh writ petitions if and when the
proposed amendment is granted by the concerned authority.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ….3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.