IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 15 OF 2010 IN APPLN. FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR NO. 15 OF 2009 UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER ... Applicant Versus DDL EXCAVATORS PVT.LTD., BY ITS DIRECTOR ... Respondent Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Asst. Solicitor General for the applicant. Mr. B. Sardessai, holding for Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- A. S. OKA, J. Date:- 9th July, 2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Asst. Solicitor General for the applicant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. This is an application for review of the Judgment and Order dated 18th December, 2009 passed by this Court in an Application for Appointment of Arbitrator No.15/2009. 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, it will be necessary to briefly refer to the facts of the case. On the basis of the arbitration clause being clause No.70 in the General Conditions of Contract for lump sum contracts, forming part of the Agreement dated 29th November, 2000, the Chief Engineer (Project) was appointed as the Arbitrator who made an award. It appears that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed before the District Court. The challenge to the Award was by both the parties. It appears that a joint application was filed in the said applications on the basis of which the award of the arbitrator was set aside by consent and the parties agreed that this Court will appoint the sole arbitrator of its choice. The parties were given liberty to approach this Court for that purpose. Accordingly, the said application No. 15/2009 was preferred by the respondent herein. By the order dated 18th December, 2009 which is sought to be reviewed, this Court appointed Mr. Justice G.D. Kamat, Retired Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court as the Sole Arbitrator. 3. The first submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in support of the review application is that the so called consent order dated 11th June, 2009 passed by the District Court was without consent of the applicant. He submitted that without authority of the applicant, the Advocate concerned signed the writing by which it was agreed to set aside the award of the sole arbitrator. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant further submitted that the appointment of the arbitrator has to be in terms of clause No.70 of the agreement which provides that the arbitrator shall be the serving Engineering Officer, not below the Rank of Superintending Engineer. He submitted that no other person could have been appointed as the arbitrator, save and except the persons stipulated in Clause 70 of the agreement. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. As pointed out earlier, the Chief Engineer (Project) Pushpak was appointed as the sole arbitrator. The award made by the arbitrator was challenged by both the parties by filing applications under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996. On 11th June, 2009, it appears that the parties filed an application before the District Court. The said application reads thus : "The Parties above named, in both the cases, state and submit as under : 1. That the Parties by mutual consent hereby agree that the Award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 7/4/2004 be set aside as prayed for by the Parties. 2. That the Parties hereby agree that the Hon'ble Goa Bench of the Mumbai High Court be pleased to appoint a Sole Arbitrator of its choice, for which purpose either of the parties may approach the Hon'ble Goa Bench of the Mumbai High Court." 5. It appears that the said application was signed by the learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel representing the applicant. On the basis of the said application jointly moved by the parties, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge passed the following order : " Hence, Award of the Sole Arbitrator is set aside. Both parties shall move the Hon'ble High Court for the appointment of a new Arbitrator of the choice of the Hon'ble High Court." 6. Thus, the order which is operating today based on the agreement between the parties is that this Court will appoint a new arbitrator of its choice. Assuming that what is contended by the applicant is correct, it was for the applicant to move the District Court for appropriate relief as regards the order dated 11th June, 2009. However, the applicant has not taken any steps as regards the Order dated 11th June, 2009. The respondent filed a fresh application under Section 11 of the said Act of 1996 on which the order sought to be reviewed has been passed. This Court appointed an Arbitrator of its choice as per the consent order of the District Court. 7. In the circumstances, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Even, otherwise also there is no ground for review. Accordingly, the review application is rejected. A. S. OKA, J. ssm.