IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 AR.No. 1 of 2010() ------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MANU S.NAIR,AGED 34, MUTHALAKUNNEL HOUSE,MUTHALAPPURAM POST, ELANJI VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI.M.G.SASIDHARAN NAIR,MUTHALKUNNEL HOUSE,MUTHALAPURAM KARA, ELANJI VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,ERNAKULAM DIST. KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SMT.MANJULA NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,KOTTAYAM. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- A.R. NO. 1 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 O R D E R According to the petitioner, the Ist respondent awarded him the work of construction of Semi permanent shed for commencing the Junior College for Higher Secondary Course at Keezhoor in Vaikom Group. It is stated that the contract was for Rs.17.4 lakhs which was subsequently revised to Rs.30.05 lakhs. According to the petitioner, he executed the work and during the course of which, he was required to execute several additional items of work as well. Accordingly, it is claimed that he executed work for a total value of Rs.41,62,824/-. 2. His grievance is that he was paid only Rs.30.05 lakhs. When amount was not paid he made representations and even then the amount was not paid. Thereupon he approached this court by filing a writ petition which was disposed of by Annexure- A1 judgment leaving it open the petitioner, to pursue the alternative remedies, in view of the disputed questions of facts involved. Accordingly, Annexure-A2 notice was issued, calling upon the respondent Board to settle his claim or to refer the AR.No.1 /2010 :2 : dispute for arbitration as provided in Annexure-A3 agreement. There was no response to that also. It is in this context the Arbitration Request is filed. 3. Clause 11 of the conditions of Annexure-A3 agreement show that in case of dispute between the Contractor and Board, Tranvancore Devaswom Board will be the Arbitrator. In this case, there is a dispute between the parties and the petitioner demanded arbitration. Since there was no response, he was justified in seeking a direction for initiating arbitration proceedings in terms of the agreement between the parties. 4. Petitioner submits that he is satisfied of the Board itself will act as the Arbitrator. In the light of the above and as the Board itself is the designated arbitrator it is directed that the Travancore Devaswom Board presently represented by its Chief Commissioner will issue notice to the petitioner, enter upon the arbitration dispute and to pass award in the dispute between the petitioner and the Board. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate on the production of a copy of this order. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ AR.No.1 /2010 :3 :