IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.26 of 2010 Date of decision : July 28, 2010 Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Reply has been filed in the Court. The same is ordered to be taken on record. 2. There was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, for execution of certain work. Agreement was reduced into writing. Copy of the agreement is Annexure P-1. Clause 25 of the agreement provides for settlement of disputes, through arbitration. Arbitrator, as per this clause, is to be appointed by the respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, dispute having arisen, with respect to the work, in question, request was made to the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement, Annexure P-1. Notice was issued on 7th August, 2009. Copy of the notice is Annexure P-3. Despite service of that notice, respondents did not appoint any Arbitrator. So, the present petition, under Section 11 of the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has been filed, for appointment of an Arbitrator. 4. In reply, the respondents have not denied that there was an agreement and that a dispute has also arisen. It is also not denied that the agreement contains a clause for settlement of disputes by arbitration and the Arbitrator is to be appointed by the respondents. What has been stated in the reply is that the request of the petitioner is barred by limitation, because the work was completed in July, 2003, while the application for appointment of Arbitrator was made in the year 2010. 5. Whether the claim of the petitioner is within time or not is a question, which has to be determined by the Arbitrator and not by this Court. 6. From the petition and the reply, it is clear that there was an agreement between the parties, a dispute has arisen and in terms of the agreement, the dispute is required to be referred to an Arbitrator, to be appointed by the respondents. Respondents having not appointed the Arbitrator, within 30 days of the notice Annexure P-3 demanding the appointment of Arbitrator, the present petition is allowed and Shri O.P. Mahajan, retired Chief Engineer, H.P.S.E.B., is appointed as Arbitrator. His fees is fixed at Rs.20,000/-. Petition stands disposed of. July 28, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J