66 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No.751 of 2024 Heikham Premila Devi & 8 Ors … Petitioners -Versus- Union of India & 8 Ors … Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA 28.3.2025 Present Mr.T.Rajendra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Bikash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kaminikumar, learned CGC for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6. None appears on behalf of respondent No.7 in spite of service of summon. [2] Petitioners’ lands have been acquired for expansion of National Highway 39 Stretch (Imphal Moreh) 330-350 kms and award dated 16.6.2022 was passed by the D.C, Thoubal, competent authority under the National Highway Act, 1956 and compensation has been awarded to the petitioners and others. If not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the competent authority and under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, the aggrieved party can approach the Arbitrator, to be recommended by the Central Government. Since no Arbitrator was appointed at the relevant time, petitioner submitted a representation to the Central Government and other authorities for appointing an Arbitrator under Section 3 G (5) of the NH Act, 1956. [3] By the present writ petition, petitioners are praying for a direction to the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 3 G (5) of the NH Act. In the Counter Affidavit of the Central Government, it is stated that vide Notification dated 10.10.2024, issued by the Director, Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Government of India, Secretary, Fisheries, Government of Manipur has been designated as Arbitrator for the Revenue District of Imphal East, Thoubal, Ukhrul, Kamjong and Kangpokpi. Admittedly, the lands of petitioners fall within the revenue district of Thoubal. After filing of the counter affidavit and appointment of Arbitrator, petitioners submitted application dated 26.2.2025 to the Arbitrator, i.e. Secretary, Fisheries, Government of Manipur for initiating arbitration proceedings with regard to the compensation amount of the petitioners. [4] Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition may be disposed of since Arbitrator has already been appointed to deal with the case. Mr.T.Rajendra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners is also agreeable to the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition may be disposed of as Arbitrator was appointed. However, it has been submitted that representation dated 26.2.2025 has not been taken up by the Arbitrator and arbitration case has not been initiated till now and direction may be issued to the Arbitrator to initiate and compete proceedings within a stipulated time. [5] This Court has perused the materials on record and in view of appointment of Arbitrator vide Notification dated 10.10.2024, the substantial prayer of the petitioners has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Arbitrator, i.e. Secretary, Fisheries, Government of Manipur to initiate and complete the arbitration proceedings in terms of the representation dated 26.2.2025 submitted by the petitioners, within a stipulated time, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [6] With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merit of the case. Send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Fisheries, Government of Manipur/Arbitrator, appointed vide Notification dated 10.10.2024 for information and doing the needful. JUDGE Priyojit RAJKUMA R PRIYOJIT SINGH Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT SINGH Date: 2025.04.01 15:30:47 +05'30'