ORDER
K.A. Swami, J.
1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 23-3-1981 passed by the 2nd respondent in Case No. KCC(A) Comp. 40/1980-81 Annexure-B in so far it relates to the rate of interest on the sums paid and payable by the 4th respondent to the Bank. The petitioner has also sought for the Issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents-1 to 3 to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 22,229-75 or such other sum as the Court deems fit, within a date fixed by this Court in the circumstances of the case.
2. The 4th respondent was the owner of the contract carriage vehicle bearing Reg. No. MYA 6149. On the security of the vehicle, the petitioner had advanced certain sum to the 4th respondent. When the amount advanced had still remained to be paid, the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) came into force on 30-1-1976. As a result of the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act and the Notification issued pursuant thereto by the State Government, the contract carriage vehicle In question bearing registration No. MYA 6149 was acquired and the same came to be vested in the State Government. The vehicle was also transferred to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation on 31-1-1976. As per the provisions contained in the Act, the compensation payable to the aforesaid vehicle was determined under Section 6(1)(a) by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, who was the authorised Officer under the Act, by the order dated 27/29-12-1980 in case No. CCC(A) Comp.40/80-81 at Rs. 1,19,115/- subject to the agreement by the ex-operator – respondent-3 (see page 53 of the records of the Special Deputy Commissioner). Pursuant to it, respondents-3 filed an application dated 28-1-1981 and agreed to accept the compensation as determined by the Special Deputy Commissioner – Authorised Officer – under the aforesaid order dated 27/29-12-1980. This application of the 3rd respondent is found at page 53 of the records of the Special Deputy Commissioner.
3. Thereafter a notice dated 7th February 1981 was issued to the petitioner as per Section 7 of the Act to file its claim as to the amount due as on 30-1-1976 with the ledger extracts on or before 15-2-1981 in respect of the vehicle In question. Accordingly, the bank submitted its claim on 16-2-1981. It claimed that a sum of Rs. 18,252-70 was due as on 16-2-1981. After notice to the petitioner and hearing its representative, the claim was decided by the Authorised Officer .on 23-3-1981. The Authorised Officer held that a sum of Rs. 7,045-90 together with interest at 6% per annum from 30-1-1976 upto the date of payment shall be paid to the petitioner. The determination made by the authorised Officer was Intimated to the petitioner through the communication dated 25-3-1981 which was received by the bank on 26-3-1981. A copy of the notice containing the endorsement made by the Manager of the petitioner Bank is found at page 66 of the records of the Special Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter the Writ Petition in question was presented before this Court . on 21-11-1982 challenging the order of the Authorised Officer dated 23-3-1981 In Case No.CCC(A) Comp. 407 80-81 vide Annexure-B. In addition to this, the petitioner-Bank has also filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount due from the 4th respondent. The suit is still pending.
4. It is contended by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. It is contended that if the determination made by the Authorised Officer was not acceptable to the Bank, it ought to have sought for determination of the same by the Arbitrator. In that event, the State Government would have appointed the Arbitrator under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act; that the Act lays down elaborate procedure to be followed by the Arbitrator for determination of the claim; that the award of the Arbitrator is also made appealable under Section 12 of the Act and the appeal lies to this Court against the award passed by the Arbitrator; that the Arbitrator as per Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act may be a person who Is an Officer of the State Government not below the rank of a Divisional Commissioner or a District; that the petitioner, having failed to Invoke the special forum provided under the Act for determination of the claims, is not entitled to seek the relief under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. It Is contended on behalf of the respondents that whenever a statute provides for a special remedy for determination of the claims, that remedy alone should be availed. It is further contended that In addition to this, the amount determined by the Authorised Officer under the Impugned order Annexure-B has also been received by the petitioner. In this regard it is submitted by Sri Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the amount is not received. The contention of Sri Holla, teamed Counsel for the petitioner, is that large portion of the claim of the petitioner has been disallowed without any justification; that the fact that the Act provides for a special forum for determination of the disputed claim, does not take away the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
4.1. In the light of the contentions urged on both the sides, the point that arises for consideration Is as to whether the petitioner had a further remedy under the Act before the special forum against the impugned order dated 23-3-1981 (Annexure-B) passed by the Authorised Officer and if so, whether failure to avail the special remedy disables the petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
5. Under Section 18 of the Act, the Authorised Officer is appointed by the State Government for the purposes of the Act. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Authorised Officer under the Act may prefer an appeal to the State Government within 30 days from the date of such decision it is also open to the State Government to entertain the appeals even after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal In time [see Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act]. No doubt Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act has used the word ‘appeal’ but having regard to the provisions contained in the Act regarding determination of compensation payable to the vehicle and the claims of the persons Interested, by the Authorised Officer, and the appeals preferred against such decision shall only mean non-acceptance of the determination made by the Authorised Officer regarding those matters and thereby requesting the State Government to appoint an Arbitrator. The Act does not contain as to how the appeal preferred under subsection (3) of Section 18 of the Act has to be dealt with by the State Government. Section 18(3) of the Act read with clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act may only mean that it is nothing but a reference to the State Government to appoint an Arbitrator under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act for deciding the claim. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act provides: “For vesting of the acquired property under Section 4 of the Act, every person Interested shall be entitled to receive such amount as may be determined in the manner hereinafter set out as specified in the schedule that is to say, (a) where the amount can be fixed by agreement, it shall be determined in accordance with such agreement.” Schedule to the Act states the principles for determination of the amount. The Authorised Officer has to determine the compensation as per the principles stated in the Schedule to the Act. It is open to the ex-operator and ‘any person interested’ as defined in the Act to accept or not to accept the determination made by the Authorised Officer. In case, they do not agree to the amount fixed by the Authorised Officer, they have been given the right to prefer an appeal to the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act on the basis of which the State Government has to appoint an Arbitrator under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act also provides that the claims made under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) and any dispute regarding the sums to be determined under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act shall be decided by the Arbitrator who has to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act.
6. The petitioner was a secured creditor. Therefore, the amount due towards the claim of the petitioner was to be deducted out of the compensation amount payable to the contract carriage operator under Clause (iii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act on priority basis. Though the petitioner preferred a claim for Rs. 18,252-70 as on 16-2-1981, it was determined by the Authorised Officer, that the petitioner was entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 7,045-90 as on 30-1-1976 with interest at 6% per annum from 30-1-1976 to the date of payment by the impugned order. The petitioner did not prefer an appeal against the aforesaid determination under Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act. It is already pointed out that the use of the expression ‘appeal’ in Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act is a misnomer. It is only intended to convey to the State Government that the amount determined by the Authorised Officer is not acceptable to the person interested or to the ex operator of the vehicle, as the case may be. When a special statute provides that a particular claim should be decided in a particular manner by a particular forum, that forum alone should have jurisdiction to decide such claim. The Act, in addition to providing a special forum i.e., the Arbitrator also further provides for an appeal against the award of the Arbitrator to this Court only. Therefore, it was all the more incumbent upon the petitioner if it was dissatisfied with the amount determined by the Authorised Officer to have its claim decided through an Arbitrator.
7. At this stage, it may also be relevant to refer to the submission made on behalf of the respondents that though the Bank preferred a claim for Rs. 18,252-70 as on 16-2-1981 with interest as per Bank Rules till the date of payment. In this regard it is relevant to notice that the principal claim of the Bank as on 30-1-1976 was only Rs. 7,045-90 excluding interest from 1-1-1976 to 30-1-1976. That it was so was stated by the Manager of the petitioner-Bank. This has been noted by the Authorised Officer in the order sheet dated 16-3-1981. It reads thus:
“Case called. Sri D.V. Jayaram absent. Sri B. Dinraj, Manager, Karnataka Bank, K.G. Road, Bangalore, present and filed a claim in the written statement claiming the amount. The bank claims Rs. 18,252-70 due as on 15-2-1981 with future interest as per Bank Rules till date of payment. He states that a sum of Rs.7,045-90 as on 30-1-1976 excluding interest from 1-1-1976 to 30-1-1976. Reserved for orders and posted to 23-3-1981 at 11.00 a.m.”
Thus it is clear that as on 30-1-1976, the date on which the vehicle in question came to be acquired and vested in the State Government, the amount due to the petitioner in relation to the vehicle in question was in a sum of Rs. 7,045-90. Under the Act the amount deductible should be the one due as on 30-1-1976. However, it is not necessary to go into the contention as to whether the Bank was entitled to have the entire claim deducted from out of the amount of compensation payable to the vehicle in question.
8. Thus from what is stated above, it is clear that the petitioner has failed to avail and invoke the special remedy provided under the Act. Jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution is not intended to by-pass the authorities who are empowered under a special statute to decide the claims. Section 26 of the Act even takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of any matter which the State Government or Arbitrator or Authorised Officer is empowered by or under the Act to determine. From Section 26 of the Act, it is also clear that the legislature intended that the special remedy provided by way of a special forum for deciding the claim under the Act should alone be availed and that special forum should alone have jurisdiction to decide such claims. However, it is not necessary to go into this question in this case and express a final opinion as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the claim as the suit filed by the petitioner is still pending.
9. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution in a case like this. The proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act enables the petitioner to prefer an appeal even beyond the period of limitation and such an appeal can be entertained if the State Government is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring an appeal in time.
10. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. All the contentions of the petitioner having a bearing on the claim are left open.