' The writ petition was admittted to regular hearing to consider whether or not the arbitration proceedings culminating in the order -dated 8-9-1991, passed by respondent No,2, as upheld by respondent No,3 vide order dated 28-3-1992 were valid.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to nominate his arbitrator, with the result that there was no arbitration council validly constituted and the proceedings taken by it were coram non judice.
3. Syed Rafaqat Ali Shah, Councillor, has produced the original record of the arbitration proceedings which lends support to this factual assertion made on bahalf of the petitioner. It is clear that till such time that Arbitration Council is properly constituted, no proceedings can be taken and any order by an illegal constituted Arbitration Council cannot be sustained.
4. The result is that this writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders darted 8-9-1991 and 28- 3-1992, passed by respondents 2 and 3 respectively, are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The maintenance application filed by respondent No,1 shall be deemed to be pending before respondent No,2. The petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of nominating an arbitrator and after constitution of the Arbitration Council proceedings should be taken afresh.
Needless to add that the parties shall be permitted to participate therein and lead evidence in support of their respective pleas, and thereafter the matter shall be decided afresh. The parties are directed to appear before respondent No,2 on 23-11-1992. The maintenance application shall be finally disposed of within a period of one and a half months positively.