IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3764 of 2010 The State of Bihar, through the Secretary and Commissioner, Road Construction Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ……….Opposite party-Petitioner Versus 1. The U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., a body corporate having its office at 16 Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow, having its local/comp office at Digha Ghat, Patna, through Shri Vinod Kumar, Project Manager, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., being a duly constituted Attorney of the said Corporation appointed through Power of Attorney, residing at NC-123 Gayatri Mandir Road, Kankarbag, in the town and district of Patna. ……….Petitioner-Opposite party 2. The Chief Engineer, Ganga Bridge Project Wing, Road Construction Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Suptd. Engineer, Ganga Bridge, Circle No.2, Road Construction Deptt. Bhagalpur (Bihar). ……..Opposite party–Opposite party 2nd set For the petitioner : Mr. P.K. Verma, A.A.G.-XI with Dr. M. Tiwari, A.C. to A.A.G.-XI For the respondents : M/s J.S. Arora and Ajay Kumar, Advocates. ----------- 05/ 27.10.2010 This petition has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and its authorities for modification of order dated 30.04.2010 passed in Request Case No.52 of 2008 for changing of its nominee in the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the said order Mr. M.P. Singh, a retired Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, was appointed as the nominee of the State of Bihar and its authorities in the Arbitral Tribunal but they are not satisfied with the said nominee who was appointed without their consent. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar further submits that the authorities are agreeable to Mr. Gobind Sharan, a retired Director General (North), Government of India as its representative in the - 2 - Arbitral Tribunal. 3. It has been seen that in past, nominees were named by the State of Bihar and its authorities but the said nominees either retired or resigned from the Tribunal due to which much delay had been caused. It further transpires that although Request Case No.52 of 2008 was filed in the year 2008 but for two years the State Government and its authorities did not give the name of their nominee for the Arbitral Tribunal to the Court and hence the said order dated 30.04.2010 was passed appointing Mr. M.P. Singh as Government’s nominee for the Arbitral Tribunal, which at that time was not objected to by respondents’ counsel. 4. However, in any view of the matter when the State Government and its authorities have now selected Mr. Gobind Sharan as their nominee, this Court feels that he should be appointed as nominee of the State Government and its authorities in the Tribunal in place of Mr. M.P. Singh and accordingly the said order dated 30.04.2010 passed in Request Case No.52 of 2008 is modified. 5. However, it may be noted that since Mr. Gobind Sharan has been appointed as nominee of the State Government and its authorities on their own request, he should take all necessary steps for expeditious arbitral proceeding so that it may come to an end as early as possible preferably within a period of eight months. The other members of the Tribunal, namely, R.L. Koul (Presiding Arbitrator) as well as Mr. Ravindra Kumar (nominee of the Corporation) shall also take all necessary steps in that regard. 6. It may further be noted that if this time the nominee - 3 - of the State Government and its authorities leaves the Tribunal before completion of the proceeding or does not cooperate in the proceeding, the Court will have no option but to appoint a sole independent Arbitrator for completion of the arbitral proceeding. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed of. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)