ORDER
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.
1. This revision petition is filed against an order dismissing Original Petition No. 277 of 1993 filed by the petitioner for revoking the authority of the sole arbitrator and to appoint another arbitrator in his place.
2. The respondent entered into an agreement dated 11-2-1986 with the petitioner for construction of buildings. As certain disputes arose at the instance of the respondent, Sri Justice C. Sriramulu, a retired Judge of the High Court was appointed as Arbitrator on 12-3-1991 and the appointment was unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court which was eventually confirmed by the Supreme Court.
3. The Arbitrator posted the arbitration case which underwent several adjournments. On 5-12-1992 the petitioner appeared before the Arbitrator. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments. On 4-7-1993 the petitioner’s counsel Sri J.V. Suryanarayana along with Financial Controller Mr. Vidhyasekhar and the Typist Mr. Subbarayudu went to the residence of the Arbitrator, but to their surprise they found the Arbitrator and the respondent discussing some matter in the drawing room and the Arbitrator has introduced them to the respondent. Vidhyasekhar and Subbarayudu have returned after the matter was adjourned and reported to the Managing Director as to what had happened on 4-7-1993. The Managing Director has asked Vidhyasekhar to put up a note and directed him to take steps for withdrawal of the arbitration proceedings as they apprehend that justice will not be done to the petitioner. Apart from this, the fee fixed by the Arbitrator at Rs. 1,00,000/- payable equally by the petitioner and the respondent is also exhorbitant.
4. The respondent filed his counter, besides denying these allegations, stated that the application is intended to drag on the arbitration proceedings and to harass the respondent. The proceedings of the arbitrator had commenced at 10.30 a.m. on 4-7-1993. As the respondent’s counsel could not attend the proceedings, the respondent attended the arbitration proceedings at 10.50 a.m. The respondent was asked to sit in the drawing room where one Sri Jagannadham, a District Judge and also the Personal Assistant of the Arbitrator were also present (in the room). Within two minutes, the petitioner’s counsel and his representative came, followed by the respondent’s counsel. The learned Arbitrator offered tea for all those persons. Even assuming that the arbitrator was found to be sitting with the repondent discussing some matter on the date of the arbitration proceedings, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the learned arbitrator had misconducted himself. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed. The petitioner’s counsel has not even filed his vakalat by then.
5. The petitioner examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. A.1 to A.6; while the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs. B.1 to B.3. On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the lower Court dismissed the application holding that the mere circumstance that the learned Arbitrator was found sitting together with the respondent in the drawing room on the date of hearing of the arbitration proceedings does not amount to misconduct of the arbitrator, and therefore, he cannot be removed. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed.
6. The matter underwent number of adjournments and the learned Arbitrator has adjourned the case to 4-7-1993 as a last chance for filing documents and payment of his fees. The counsel for the petitioner P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he left his house by 9.35 or 9.40 a.m. and reached the learned Arbitrator’s house by 9.45 or 9.50 a.m. along with Vidhyasekhar and Subbarayudu. After waiting in the court-yard for 10 minutes, he pressed the door button. After two or three minutes, he pressed the call bell. As there was no response, he entered the house by pushing aside the curtain and found the learned Arbitrator speaking to the respondent. The learned Arbitrator introduced the respondent to the learned advocate. None others were present at that time. The respondent looked at P.W. 1 with a little surprise. He admitted that he could not file vakalat by then. It is found that he has sent Ex. A.2 letter on 10-7-1993 expressing his intention of withdrawing from arbitration. He admitted that as an advocate he did not think of withdrawing from the arbitration proceedings. He also admitted that he does not know why Vidhyasekhar had apprehension in his mind at that time. He stated that he has no occasion to object at the behavior of the learned Arbitrator on 4-7-1993 as he did not ascertain the mind of the officials of the petitioner till after the proceedings of 4-7-1993 were over and he met them again on 10-7-1993 by which date the said Vidhyasekhar reported the matter to the Managing Director of the petitioner.
7. It is surprising that this application is filed on the apprehension entertained by Mr. Vidhyasekhar who is working as Financial Controller in the Petitioner Spinning Mill and not on the basis of any apprehension expressed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner i.e., P.W. 1 who was also present throughout. Even the so-called apprehension of Vidhyasekhar was not translated in writing addressed to the Managing Director. It was merely stated that the Managing Director was orally informed on which the Managing Director asked him to put up a note. At any rate, nothing is placed on record showing about the immediate reaction of Vidhyasekhar on the same day in writing. It is also not brought on record whether Vidhyasekhar had prepared a note incorporating his impressions of the day’s proceedings as sought for by the Managing Director P.W.4. Evidently, P.W.1 did not entertain any apprehension about the attitude of the learned arbitrator before the Managing Director, nor did the latter formed this opinion on the basis of any representation made by P.W.1 who is handling the case. The application was filed in a very casual manner without bestowing any attention to such a serious matter. It is also a pity that the petitioner wants to attribute bias to the learned Arbitrator merely because the respondent who is a party to the arbitration proceedings was seen conferring with him as both of them were sitting together in the drawing room where ordinarily arbitration proceedings take place, that too at about the appointed time and the date fixed for arbitration proceedings. The lower Court rightly found that the drawing room in question was small which could accommodate one sofa set and two small chairs only and as such even if R.W.1 was sitting close to the Arbitrator, nothing follows. The petitioner who is examined as P.W.4 did not state anything except that he filed the application on the information furnished by his staff. R.Ws. 1 and 3 do not say anything except they saw R.W.1 and Arbitrator sitting close to one another. A responsible officer like P.W.4 will have to ponder over the matter and apply his mind with some seriousness before resorting to filing of such applications on the basis of imaginary apprehensions expressed by his subordinates. It is not uncommon that subordinate staff either out of over anxiety or due to inexperience about the functioning of officers in judicial and quasi-judicial-matters report exaggerated versions of the Court proceedings with a view to impress upon their superior officers about their wonderful comprehension of the proceedings and to exhibit their ability of sensing things which do not exist. P.W.4, an officer entrusted with public duties would have given due allowance for the exaggerated version of the officers and examined this issue a little more carefully and taken a decision whether to file such applications in public interest as resorting to frivolous applications would result in waste of public time, energy and resources. But P.W.4 had acted hastily on the advice of his subordinates, and filed this application. It is equally interesting to note that the said Vidhyasekhar, basing on whose information, the petition was filed by P.W.4 was not even examined before the lower Court. The evidence of Subbarayudu also does not advance the case, any further. P.W.2 also does not appear to be an eye-witness to the events that happened on 4-7-1993. Therefore, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the finding of the lower Court that the petitioner has failed to establish that the conduct of the learned Arbitrator has given rise to any reasonable apprehension about bias, or misconduct on the part of the learned Arbitrator.
8. However, Sri N.V. Ranganadham appearing for the petitioner submits that there need not be proof of actual bias, but if mere is a reasonable apprehension, it is enough to support the application of this nature. He relies upon Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, . No doubt, the test is not whether in fact bias has affected the result of the decision, but whether the litigant had a reasonable apprehension that the bias might have operated in the mind of the officer while making the decision. In order to ascertain whether there is reasonable ground for apprehension that the Arbitrator is biased or not, the test is whether substantial miscarriage of justice will result if the Arbitrator continues the arbitration proceedings in the light of the allegations. As already seen, except stating that the Arbitrator was conversing with the respondent at the appointed time, nothing is suggested to show that the learned Arbitrator has any bias or the petitioner has any genuine apprehension that justice would not be meted out to him. Even the learned Arbitrator is not made a party. In view of the allegations, he should have been made a party so that he could have had an opportunity to refute those allegations.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Arbitrator has fixed his fee at Rs. 1,00,000/- which is excessive and that he has apportioned the same equally on the petitioner and the respondent. It is his further contention that when P.W.1 asked him to give a requisition for the same, the Arbitrator has refused to do so and advised P.W.1 to send a requisition to his client informing him about the same. I do not find that the procedure adopted by the learned Arbitrator is in any way objectionable as proceedings were already recorded about fixing his fee and apportionment thereof. Therefore, it is for P.W.1 to inform his client to make arrangement for payment of fee.
10. The next objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that notwithstanding a letter addressed by P.W.1 for copies of the proceedings, the learned arbitrator did not furnish copies on the ground that P.W.1 has withdrawn from the proceedings. It is not disputed that P.W.1 has not filed vakalat even by 4-7-1990. However, vakalat was filed on 10-7-1990 along with a letter withdrawing from the proceedings. Therefore, P.W.1 has no valid authority even on 10-7-1990 for seeking copies of the proceedings. The learned Arbitrator was right in refusing to grant copies on such requisition.
11. In view of the above discussion, I cannot agree with any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.