Arbitration Case No. 100 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 100 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.2.2011 Jai Hanuman Bajrang Bali Co. ….Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J Petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of a contract work for special repair of roads in Sector 15, part IV, Sonepat. A perusal of the petition shows that the dispute between the parties has been referred to Shri G. C. Garg, Superintendent Engineer, HUDA, RGEC Circle, Sonepat vide the communication dated 18.11.2009 i.e. even before the filing of the present petition, in pursuance of the notice served on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has sought appointment of an independent Arbitrator rather than an official of the respondents. The relevant extract for Arbitration clause between the parties read as under: - “Clause 25(A) ii) All dispute or difference in respect of which the decision is not final and conclusive shall at the earliest, in writing, of either party, made in a communication sent through Registered A.D. Post, be referred to the sole arbitration of any serving Superintending Engineer of HUDA, to be nominated by designation by the Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer, HUDA, at the relevant time. There will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a Government Servant/in service of HUDA or that he had to deal with the matters to which the contract relates in the course of his duties 1 Arbitration Case No. 100 of 2010 as a Government servant/in service of HUDA he has expressed his views on all or any of the matter in dispute. The Arbitrator to whom the matters is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office, his successor-in-office, as such shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. In case the arbitrator nominated by the Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer, HUDA is unable or unwilling to act as arbitrator such for any reason, whatsoever the Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer, HUDA shall be competent to appoint and nominate any other Superintending Engineer of HUDA as arbitrator in his place and the arbitrator so appointed shall be entitled to proceed with the reference.” The agreement relied upon by the petitioner itself contains a clause that there shall be no objection for appointment of an Arbitrator, that the Arbitrator appointed is a government servant or in service of Haryana Urban Development Authority. In view of the agreement between the parties, the appointment of an official of HUDA as an Arbitrator cannot be permitted to be disputed by the petitioner in the present proceedings. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 28.2.2011 preeti 2