Civil Revision No.4064 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4064 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 11.08.2009 Rajesh Kumar ......Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.06.2009, passed by District Judge, Sangrur whereby the application for replacing the Arbitrator i.e. Sh.B.K.Gaur, Retired Additional District Judge, Moga was allowed and Sh.J.C.Aggarwal, Retired District Judge, now settled at Malerkotla was appointed as Arbitrator in his place. The brief history of the case is that vide judgment dated 06.02.2001, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, had appointed Sh.B.K.Gaur, Retired Additional District Judge, Moga as Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties. Now, on showing the inability to act as Arbitrator on account of his ill health, the petitioner-respondent applied for replacing him by a new Arbitrator. The present case does not relate to the appointment of new Arbitrator but it relates to the substitution of the Arbitrator by an old one which was appointed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur. There is no dispute with the proposition that now under Civil Revision No.4064 of 2009(O&M) 2 the scheme, appointment of the Arbitrators was to be made by the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court or his nominee. The appointment of the Arbitrator made by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur has not been disapproved or set aside by any Court of law. It has also been observed in case S.B.P. & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 618 that District Judge may not be designated under Section 11(6) of the Act. However, in case where they had been so designated the arbitrators so appointed by them would be treated as valid. However, pending applications before the District Judges on the date of this order would stand transferred, to be dealt with by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned or his designate. Since this appointment of the Arbitrator was never challenged by the petitioner. This being the petition for substitution cannot be said to be a request for fresh appointment of the Arbitrator. It being a substitution of the previous Arbitrator cannot be said to be illegal and is not hit by the scheme or is contrary to the spirit of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in S.B.P. & Co. (Supra). No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.08.2009 mamta-II