Arb. Case 62 of 2009 30.11.2009 Present: Shri J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for the respondents. The undisputed facts before me are that the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration), HP PWD, Solan was appointed as Arbitrator by the order of this Court on 21st November, 2007. The order reads:- “21.11.2007 Present: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the Claimant-petitioner. Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that this petition be allowed and Superintending Engineer (Arbitration), HP PWD, Solan be appointed as the Single Member Arbitral Tribunal. Based upon the aforesaid agreement and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed. Superintending Engineer (Arbitration), HP PWD, Solan is appointed as a Single Member Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties forming the subject matter of this petition. The parties are at liberty to file their claims/counter claims. The learned Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference immediately and pass the arbitral award without any delay. The petition is disposed of. Sd/- November 21, 2007 V.K. Gupta, C.J.” It is pleaded by the petitioner that pursuant to this order no proceedings were conducted by the arbitrator through claim alongwith order was filed with him. The record also shows no proceedings on record of this case, except Annexure P3 which is a communication addressed by the Arbitrator to the Superintendent (Judicial) High Court, Shimla which is reproduced hereinunder:- “Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department No. PW-SE-ARB-Misc./2009-606-08 Dated 27/06/09 To Superintendent (Judicial), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Subject:- Arbitration Case No. 29 of 2007-between Sh. Sunder Singh Chuhan, S/o of Shri Mehar Chand, R/o Shakti Sadan Dahlli, Shimla-12 Vs. State of H.P. In response to order of Hon’ble high Court of H.P. dated 21/11/2007in the Arbitration Case No. 29 of 2007, between Sh. Sunder Singh Chuhan, S/o of Shri Mehar Chand R/o Shakti Sadam Dahlli Shimla-12. Vs. State of H.P., vide which the Superintending Engineer Arbitration Circle HP PWD, Solan has been appointed as a single member Arbitral tribunal to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. In this connection it is brought to your notice that neither the record of the relevant case nor copy of order sheet dated 21/11/2007, has been received in this office so far, whereas the statement of facts & counter claim alongwith copy of order sheet dated 21/11/2007 has been received from the contractor concerned. It is, therefore, requested that relevant record of the above Arbitration case alongwith copy of order sheet dated 21/11/2007 may plase be sent to this office, so that this office be able to comply with the order of the Hon’ble High Court please. Arbitrator-Cum, Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, Hp PWD Solan. Copy to Shri Sunder Singh Chuhan, son of Shri Mehar Chand, R/o Shakti Sadan Dahlli, Shimla-12 for information with reference to his statement of facts & counter claim dated 15/06/2009 submittedto this office. Copy to Executive Engineer, Kasauli Division HP PWD, Kasuali for information please. Sd/- Arbitrator-Cum Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HP PWD, Solan.” A bare perusal of this letter would show that the Arbitrator is unable to act as he does not know how to proceed in the matter. I do not wish to add anything more. Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) provide: “14. Failure or impossibility to act.-(1) The mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate if- (a) he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay; and (b) he withdraws from his office or the parties agree to the termination of his mandate. (2) If a controversy remains concerning any of the grounds referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), a party may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, apply to the Court to decide on the termination of the mandate. (3) If, under this section or sub-section (3) of section 13, an arbitrator withdraws from his office or a party agrees to the termination of the mandate of an arbitrator, it shall not imply acceptance of the validity of any ground referred to in this section or sub-section (3) of section 12. 15. Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator-(1) In addition to the circumstances referred to in section 13 or section 14, the mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate- (a) where he withdraws from office for any reason; or (b) by or pursuant to agreement of the parties. (2) Where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. (3) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where an arbitrator is replaced under sub-section (2), any hearings previously held may be repeated at the discretion of the arbitral tribunal. (4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an order or ruling of the arbitral tribunal made prior to the replacement of an arbitrator under this section shall not be invalid solely because there has been a change in the composition of the arbitral tribunal.” I find that this case is squarely covered by Section 14 1(a) ibid as the arbitrator has displayed extraordinary lethargy. There is no expalantion on record as to why the case has been kept pending for two years without any proceedings taking place. Ultimately, one communication is addressed to the Registry to send the record of the arbitration. The order dated 21.11.2007 was passed in the presence of the learned Deputy Advocate General and the arbitrator could have contacted the office of the learned Advocate General. Even if any communication was to be addressed to the Registry of this Court (which infact was not required), there is no explanation as to why it could not be addressed earlier. His mandate is, therefore, terminated. The Superintending Engineer 4th Circle, HP PWD, Shimla is appointed as Arbitrator. Parties to appear before him on 18th December, 2009. He shall thereafter proceed with all expedition. Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. November 30, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge.