JUDGMENT
Mishra, J.
1. Mr. B.T. Seshadri appears on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent. It is agreed between the parties that the entire matter, that is to say, the appeal itself can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it is in the interests of all concerned that the appeal itself is finally disposed of at this stage.
2. The impugned order reads as follows:
I have heard Mr. B.T. Seshadri on behalf of the contractor and Mr. V.R. Gopalan on behalf of the Railways. I have also perused me affidavit filed in support of the suit and the counter statement filed on behalf of the Railways. The General Manager, Southern Railway, will follow the procedure in accordance with Clause 63(3)(ii) and Clause 63(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract and appoint two Arbitrators to decide the dispute and differences that have arisen between the contractor and the Southern Railway. All the disputes that have already been raised by both parties in the affidavit filed in support of the suit and also in the counter affidavit will be decided by the two arbitrators. The arbitrators so appointed shall dispose of the matter and pass the Award within four months from the date of entering upon the reference.
The procedure with regard to the appointment of two arbitrators shall be completed within six weeks from this date.
Followed by the formal decretal order in these words:
(1) That the General Manager, Southern Railway the 2nd defendant herein to follow the procedure in accordance with Clause 63(3) (ii) and Clause 63(3)(b) of the General Conditions of the Contract and appoint two Arbitrators to decide the dispute and differences that had arisen between the contractor and the Railway and also to decide all the disputes that had already been raised by both parties in the affidavit, and also in the counter affidavit filed herein:
(2) that, the said Arbitrators appointed herein shall dispose of the matter and pass the Award within four months from the date of entering upon the reference and
(3) That the procedure with regard to the appointment of the Arbitrators as mentioned in Clause (1) supra shall be completed within six weeks from this date, i.e., on or before 3.5.1991.
3. It is not known why the learned single Judge found that the General Manager, Southern Railway, was required to follow the procedure in accordance with Clause 63(3)(ii) and Clause 63(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract and appoint two Arbitrators to decide the dispute and differences that have arisen between the contractor and the Southern Railway, when it had been contested before him on behalf of the appellants/ Railways that no such arbitration was possible with respect to the dispute and that the dispute falls beyond the agreement. No judicial order can be justified unless it is a speaking order. It is not stated anywhere in the impugned order what was the dispute for arbitration and why the plaintiff wanted the appointment of arbitrator and reference and why the appellants/Railways objected to the appointment of the arbitrator or reference of the dispute to arbitrator. It appears that correct position of law in this regard was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. It is well settled that a judicial order must advert to the facts and issues and give a specific finding before the operative order is passed. For the said reason alone, the impugned order has to be set aside and remitted to the trial court.
4. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remit the whole matter to the trial Court for a rehearing and disposal in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
