This appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, is directed against the judgment/order dated 20-2-1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petition of the appellant was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts forming background of this appeal are that the appellant being a lessee of District Council, Jhang, for the recovery of goods exit tax for a period of 11 months i.e. 1-8-1995 to 30-6-1996 being aggrieved of certain acts of omission and commission committed by the District Council, Jhang proceeded to invoke the arbitration clause of the contract of lease dated 1-8-1995 duly entered into between the appellant and the said District Council, Jhang by way of filing an application before, the sole Arbitrator named in the said contract i.e. Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad. The application seeking reference to the Arbitrator was contested by the District Council, Jhang on multifarious grounds. The Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad in the capacity of his being the Arbitrator entered upon the reference and ultimately decided the dispute between the parties vide his tentative award (though in the form of an order) dated 6-2- 1996 thereby observing that the appellant is being penalized without any justification and that his grievance be redressed by the District Council, Jhang. The parties were directed to appear before District' Council, Jhang on 6-7-1996.
3. It appears that the appellant mistook the abovesaid award as an order and instead of having recourse to the Court under the Arbitration Act appeared before the District Council so as to further pursue his remedy. The Administrator, District Council in turn having proceeded to hear the parties opined against the appellant and resubmitted the case to the Arbitrator i.e. Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad. On the resubmission of the reference, the new incumbent of the Office of the Commissioner proceeded to dismiss the application of the appellant. The appellant as it appears repeated the same mistake by assailing the award of the Arbitrator by filing a Constitutional petition which was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court primarily on the ground that the matter in dispute was initiated under the Arbitration Act, 1940, therefore, the remedy of the appellant, if any, lies under the said Act and definitely not by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Another argument that prevailed the learned Single Judge was to the effect that the relationship between the parties was governed by the term of an agreement and since the contractual rights and obligations cannot be adjudicated under Article 199 of the Constitution, therefore, no case for interference was made on.
4. At the hearing the learned counsel for the appellant having conceded that the appellant had approached the Commissioner in the capacity of his being the named. Arbitrator in the agreement argued that since the Commissioner had proceeded to pass an order, therefore, the remedy of the appellant was available by having recourse to the provision of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. We are afraid the argument suffers from an in-built fallacy. Having conceded at the Bar that the appellant approached the Commissioner in the capacity of his being an Arbitrator, every step taken by the Commissioner in pursuance thereof was that of an Arbitrator, therefore, the total proceedings taken by the Commissioner shall be deemed to have been taken under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Scheme of Arbitration Act provides for various eventualities which may occur from the invocation of Arbitration clause to entering upon the reference as also the proceedings thereafter which ultimately, culminate in an award. In the event that the Arbitrator having entered upon the reference fails to use all reasonable dispatch in conducting the proceedings or making an award the Court is empowered under section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to remove such an Arbitrator while section 30 of the same Act provide for setting aside the award if the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself or the proceedings or that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. It is so obvious from the provisions contained in the section that a complete code has been provided by the Arbitration Act to meet all eventualities which may arise during the course of proceedings by the Arbitrator or even thereafter. Needless to add that no one is left remediless even at a stage after announcement of award. The appellant having himself approached the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad in the capacity of his being the Arbitrator could not possibly turn around to maintain that the said Commissioner had passed an order instead of award, therefore, we are in full agreement with the learned Single Judge that no recourse could be had to the provision of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Again it is' rightly held that the relationship between the parties was governed by an agreement and the contractual rights and obligations could not be adjudicated under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
5. Before parting with this judgment we may also point it out here that the competence of this- appeal is also doubtful inasmuch if the order passed by the Commissioner is treated to be one passed in his capacity as such, the same is revisable by the Government as is envisaged under Local Council Ordinance, 1979. Since a revision is provided under the Act, therefore, this appeal is obviously barred in view of the proviso attached to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.
Needless to add that even under the Arbitration Act the appeal having been provided against the order making the award rule of the Court or even setting aside the same, no Intra-Court Appeal could be maintained in view of the law aforenoted.
6. For what has been stated above this appeal is dismissed in limine.