IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Case No.53 of 2011 Decided on: October 20, 2011 Arun Kumar Thakur ..Petitioner Versus H.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board and another .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Reply is stated to have been filed at the counter of the Registry, yesterday, but the same has not been placed on record. Copy of the said reply has been made available to the Court by the parties, which is ordered to be taken on record. 3. Petitioner was awarded work of expansion and modernization of RM Yard at Kather (Solan), by the respondents. Petitioner executed the work, with certain deviations, as were proposed by the respondents. Petitioner claimed some extra cost, in respect of deviations and work, Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É and when the same was not paid, he sought to take recourse to Arbitration clause, contained in para 25 of the agreement, copy Annexure C-1, which provides for settlement of disputes arising between the parties, by an Arbitrator, to be appointed by the Engineer-Incharge or the Chief Engineer, HP PWD. Petitioner approached Chief Engineer, HP PWD, vide notice dated 23.7.2011, copy Annexure C-3. Said Chief Engineer did not appoint any Arbitrator. So, the petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of Arbitrator. 4. On being noticed, respondents have filed reply, in which it is stated that petitioner has already been paid the entire amount of money, mentioned as cost of the work in agreement, Annexure C-1, and now nothing is due to him. 5. Respondents not only do not deny that there were some deviations, but even admit the fact. Now what the respondents have paid is money equivalent to the amount mentioned in the agreement. When some deviations were there, naturally there had to be variation in the amount of work, on either side. According to the petitioner, variation was on higher side of the amount mentioned in the agreement. Respondents do not say that it was on the lower side of the said amount. Therefore, prima-facie a dispute is there between the parties. In any É3É case, the question whether there is a dispute or not has also to be determined by the Arbitrator. 6. As a result of above stated position, present petition is allowed and Shri O.P. Mahajan, Retired Chief Engineer, is appointed as Arbitrator. His fee is fixed at `50,000/- inclusive of ministerial expenses. In case adjudication of dispute requires travelling outside Shimla Town, Arbitrator shall be paid travelling charges and hotel charges plus `1000/-, as daily allowance for such visits. Arbitrator’s fee and travelling expenses, if any, shall initially be defrayed by the petitioner. However, ultimate liability for payment of fee and travailing/hotel charges (if any), shall be determined by the Arbitrator himself. Disposed of. October 20, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.