IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQ. CASE No.5 of 2010 ----------- M/s Uttar Bihar Construction Company, Sports Club Road, Chhatauni Motihari, East Champaran, through its Partner Rabindra Pratap Singh, son of late Jang Bahadur Singh, resident of village Rajapur Mathia, P.S. Kotwa, District East Champaran …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Divisional Railway Manager (Works) East Central Railway, Danapur, Mahendru, Patna 2. The Chief Engineer, Construction (South) East Central Railway, Danapur, Patna 3. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction, East Central Railway, Danapur, Patna 4. The Senior Divisional Engineer (Lines), East Central Railway, Danapur, Patna. … Respondents ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopal Prasad Roy, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate --------- 05/ 09.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This request case has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as in terms of Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract, 2001. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement between the parties was dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure 2), in which it was provided that for the purposes of the said agreement, the provision, instruction, terms and conditions as contained in the Eastern Railway, Engineering Department-General Conditions of Contract and Standard Specifications, 2001 shall be applicable. He further says that the petitioner’s petition for arbitration dated 15.11.2009 (Annexure 12) filed in compliance of order dated 2 10.11.2009 (Annexure 11) passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 970 of 2008 was rejected by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction, East Central Railway, Danapur vide letter dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure A to the counter-affidavit) stating that the demand for arbitration should be referred to the General Manager on all matters in writing as per the terms of General Conditions of Contract (Amendment) 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since according to the agreement the provisions of the General Conditions of Contract, 2001 were to be applicable, the prayer of the petitioner was wrongly rejected on the basis of General Conditions of Contract, (Amendment) 2008, which is not applicable as it was to raise the dispute before the person, who had executed the agreement along with the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and lays stress on the wordings of the agreement (Annexure 2) as well as the provisions of General Conditions of Contract, 2001 and General Conditions of Contract (Amendment) 2008. 5. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that in the General Conditions of Contract, 2001 no authority is named before whom the dispute of arbitration can be raised. From the agreement between the parties dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure 2), it is clear that apart from the petitioner, it was executed by the Chief Engineer (Construction), South East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna, but the petitioner’s petition for 3 arbitration dated 15.11.2009 (Annexure 12) was not filed before the said authority rather it was filed before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction, East Central Railway, Danapur. It also transpires that by order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure 11), a Division Bench of this Court had observed that if the petitioner felt that it had suffered any injury at the hands of the respondents, it might pursue remedy through arbitration. Hence, it was the duty of the petitioner to pursue the remedy of arbitration before the appropriate authority, which was definitely not the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction, East Central Railway, Danapur, before whom he had filed his petition dated 15.11.2009 (Annexure 12) for arbitration. 6. The General Conditions of Contract, 2001 is silent with respect to the authority before whom the matter of arbitration could be pursued and it is specifically mentioned in Clause 1(b) of the agreement dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure 2) that the terms and conditions of the General Conditions of Contract, 2001 with up to date amendments shall be applicable. Furthermore, up to date amendment at the time of filing of the said petition for arbitration dated 15.11.2009 (Annexure 12) was the General Conditions of Contract (Amendment) 2008, which provided that the General Manager shall be the authority before whom the remedy of arbitration can be pursued. Thus, the petitioner had to file its petition for arbitration before the General Manager, but no such application has admittedly been filed before the said authority. 7. In the said circumstances, this request case is 4 disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue its remedy of arbitration before the appropriate authority. If such an application is filed before the General Manager within fifteen days from today, the said authority shall dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within three months thereafter. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )