IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 38 of 2011. Decided on October 13, 2011. Parkash Chand Sethi …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was awarded work of construction of road, by the Public Works Department, represented by respondents, vide agreement, dated 9.5.2008. As per this agreement, petitioner was to construct a road, on a stretch of about 9 kms. Petitioner constructed road on a stretch of 7 kms., but on remaining 2 kms, between 4/750 to 7/840, road has not been constructed, on account of non clearance by the Forest Department. 3. Petitioner’s plea is that on account of the aforesaid stretch of 2 kms, having not been cleared by the Forest Department, his machinery and labour remained idle Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - for a long time, for which he claims damages, equivalent to the amount, which he would have claimed, had he constructed the road on that 2 kms stretch also. 4. Clause 25 of the agreement, provides for settlement of all disputes, arising between the parties, by an arbitrator, to be nominated by Engineer Incharge or the Chief Engineer. Petitioner approached the Chief Engineer, vide notice dated 20.11.2010, Annexure-A, for appointment of arbitrator. No arbitrator having been appointed by the said Chief Engineer till date, petitioner filed the present petition, under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for appointment of an arbitrator. 5. Respondents, in their reply, have admitted that road, on a stretch of about 2 kms, has not been constructed, because of non clearance of that stretch by the Forest Department. It is stated that petitioner has been paid money, due to him for the rest of the work executed by him. He is alleged to be not entitled to anything, on account of non construction of left out stretch of 2 kms. It is stated that there is no dispute between the parties and hence, question of appointment of arbitrator, does not arise. 6. Question, whether there is a dispute between the parties or not, especially in the context of the averments made by the petitioner, is liable to be determined by the arbitrator himself and not by the Hon’ble Chief Justice or a Judge, designated by him, while exercising power, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation - 3 - Act. Hence, present petition is allowed and Shri M.D.Sharma, who has been appointed as arbitrator in another similar matter between the same parties, is appointed as arbitrator. His fee is fixed at `40,000/- and ministerial expenses, to the tune of `5,000/-. Disposed of. October 13, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.