IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.58 of 2010 Date of decision : December 15, 2010 Ashok Kumar Thakur …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was assigned some work, after his tender was accepted by Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh. An agreement was executed, which contains an Arbitration clause. Final bill was submitted by the petitioner, but the money has not been paid to him, so far, though a period of seven years has elapsed. Petitioner then sent a notice, Annexure P-8, to the Chief Engineer, National Highway, who, according to the Arbitration Clause, has to appoint an Arbitrator, if approached, for the purpose, by either of the parties to the agreement. Said Chief Engineer did not appoint any Arbitrator, within thirty days. So, present petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was filed. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? …2… 3. In reply, it is stated that the concerned Executive Engineer has yet not finalized the bill. Bill was submitted about seven years back. Its non-settlement for seven long years itself raises a dispute, within the meaning of Arbitration clause. So, the present petition is allowed and Shri O.P. Mahajan, retired Chief Engineer, is appointed as Arbitrator. He shall give award within four months. His fee is fixed at `50,000/-, plus `5,000/- secretarial expenses. Petition stands disposed of. December 15, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J