IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQ. CASE No.10 of 2010 ----------- U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. a body Corporate, having its head Office at 16, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow, having its local/ Camp office at Digha Ghat, Patna through Sri 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 Gayitri Mandir Road, Kankarbagh in the town and District of Patna ……… Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, through General Manager, East Central Ra8lway. 2. East Central Railway, through the General Manager, both having their offices at Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar 3. Chief Administrative Officer (Con), East Central Railway, Mahendru Ghat, Patna -800004. …. Respondents -------- For the Petitioner : M/s Jashawir Singh Arora, Ajay Kumar & Ravi Bhatia, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------ 06/ 09.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This request case has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the dispute and differences between the parties with respect to construction of guide bunds, foundation and substructure of Rail Bridge across river Gangage near Digha Ghat, Patna. 3. It is not in dispute that the said agreement was between the parties, which contained the terms and conditions, whereas, under Clause 24 of the Special Conditions of the Contract (General) read with Clause 64 (1)(ii) of the General Conditions of Contract 2001, an arbitration clause was given, according to which the dispute between the parties was to be decided by way of 2 arbitration by an Arbitral Tribunal to be constituted in terms of the agreement. 4. There is no dispute that on the request of the petitioner, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted as far back as in the year 2007, in which all the Arbitrators were Railway authorities, but for one reason or the other the said authorities could not complete the arbitration for about four years specially because the members of the Arbitral Tribunal kept on changing due to transfers, retirements etc. and even at the time of filing of this request case, there was vacancy in the Arbitral Tribunal. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the instant request case. 5. Now learned counsel for the respondents submits that an Arbitrator has been appointed and the Arbitral Tribunal is functioning properly and a date had also been fixed on which date the petitioner had appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal, which is ready to take up the matter and dispose it off expeditiously. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a last chance is given to the Arbitral Tribunal to complete the arbitral proceeding within three months after holding regular sittings at Patna from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, which must be done by the petitioner within fifteen days from today. It may be noted that if the arbitration is not completed within the aforesaid period fixed by this Court, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court and if the facts claimed by the petitioner are found to be true, this Court will be constrained to pass appropriate 3 orders in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It goes without saying that none of the parties shall take undue adjournment in the said arbitral proceeding and shall co-operate in early disposal of the same. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this request case stands disposed of. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )