IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9197 of 2011 M/S Shri V.P.Sanjiv, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Vishwa Prakash Sanjiv S/O Sri Satyendra Kumar Verma R/O 85/D, Ghoshapara Road, Barrackpore, P.S.- Titagarh Distt.- 24 Pargana, Kolkata-700120 At Present Residing At " Raj Nilay " Ashokpuri, Khazpura, P.S.- Shastri Nagar District In The Town Of Patna …Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Defence, South Block, New Delhi 2. The Engineer In Chief, Army Head Quarter, Kashmir House, Bhq Po, New Delhi-110011 3. The Chief Engineer, HQ (Head Quarter), Central Command Engineer Branch, Lucknow (U.P.) 4. The Chief Engineer, Jabalpur Zone, Military Engineer Service, Bhagat Marg, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh 5. The Commander Work Engineers, Military Engineer Service, Dipatoli, Ranchi Jharkhand 6. The Garrisom Engineer, Military Engineer Service, Danapur Cantt. Danapur Patna 7. The Assistant Garrison Engineer (Engineer-In-Charge), Danapur, Patna … Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shankar Dayal Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : None. -------- 05/ 22.07.2011 In this case learned counsel for the petitioner had been heard in part on two dates i.e. 15.07.2011 and 20.07.2011 and the case was adjourned on the said two dates only due to the absence of learned counsel for the respondents, whose name is appearing on the daily cause list. Today also learned counsel for the respondents is absent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 16.09.2008, by which 2 the Chief Engineer, Jabalpur Zone, Military Engineer Service, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh (respondent no.4 ) imposed penalty of “Risk & Cost” and cancelled the petitioner’s contract, namely “Provision of Certain OTM Accommodation at Danapur vide agreement no, “CEJZ/DANA/01 of 2006-07” and for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner also to participate in the tendering process of the balance work in question for which fresh tender has already been issued as well as also for a direction to the respondents to hand over/release to the petitioner his entire tools, plants and machineries lying on the work site at Danapur M.E.S. Cantonment and to appoint an independent and impartial sole arbitrator for adjudication of the petitioner’s disputes. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that an Arbitrator has already been appointed in the matter, but unnecessarily delay is being caused. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as in view of the claim of the petitioner, supported by the documents annexed to the writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appointed Arbitrator to expedite the arbitral proceeding and to decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner as well as respondent-authorities are also directed to co-operate in the early disposal of the arbitral proceeding. 5. Till final order passed by the Arbitrator in the 3 arbitral proceeding the penalty of “Risk & Cost” imposed by the respondents should not be recovered from the petitioner MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )