IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 78 of 2011 Decided on: 27.12.2011 M/s Anil Kumar Gupta Engineers & Contractors SCO No. 64, 2nd Floor Sector 40-C Chandigarh ...Claimant Versus 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary, HP PWD, B & R Shimla. 2. The Executive Engineer, HP PWD Palampur Division, Palampur (H.P.) 3. The Engineer in Chief, HP PWD, B & R, Nirkman Sadan, New Shimla. 4. The Chief Engineer (KZ) HP PWD Dharamshala (H.P.) …Respondents In respect of the disputes relating to the arbitration agreement relating to the work of “construction of 166 Mtr. C/c of bearing on abutments (Fourt Spans of 40 mtrs. Each c/c bearing and gap span of 2.20 mtr. Each) PSC Girder Super Structure bridge over Neogal Khad on Kuhak Gharthoon road at 6/000”. awarded to the claimant vide letter dated 7.3.2001 (Contract-Agreement No. 169/2000-01) Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the claimant : Mr. Puran Singh Rana and Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _______________________________________________________________________ 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : There is a provision contained in Arbitration Clause 65 of the agreement whereby the Engineer-in-Chief is competent to appoint the Superintending Engineer as an Arbitrator. 2. Mr. R. P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General was requested to seek instructions whether the Superintending Engineer can be appointed as an Arbitrator in this case or not. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, on the basis of instructions, submits that he has no objection in case the Superintending Engineer is appointed as an Arbitrator. 3. Consequently, the Superintending Engineer is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the claim. Parties are directed to file claim petition before the Superintending Engineer (Arbitrator) within a period of four weeks from today. It shall be open to the respondents to file reply within a further further of two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within a further period of two weeks thereafter. The Superintending Engineer (Arbitrator) is directed to decide the matter within six weeks thereafter, strictly as per per law. 4. With these directions/observations made hereinabove, the present arbitration case is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Rajiv Sharma). Judge. December 27, 2011 (kalpana)