C.W.P NO. 17322 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 17322 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 30.03.2009 M/S Shiva Constr. & Anr. ...Petitioners versus Kurukshetra University and Anr. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S. C. Sibbal, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. S. Rana, Advocate, for the respondents. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure P-39), whereby the arbitration proceedings between them and respondent No.1, pending before respondent No.2-the Arbitrator, are stated to have been abruptly closed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The impugned order, a copy of which has been received by petitioner No.2 under the Right to Information Act, has also been perused. C.W.P NO. 17322 OF 2008 -2- It appears that while the matter was pending before respondent No.2-the Arbitrator, certain directions to be complied with by the petitioner were issued. As the petitioners failed to honour those directions and no-one appeared on their behalf, the learned Arbitrator drop the arbitration proceedings. Meanwhile, respondent No.2, who was serving as Superintending Engineer, PWD (B & R) Department, Government of Haryana, has retired from service. The Arbitration Agreement between the parties reads as follows : “(2) All disputes or differences in respect of which the decision is not final and conclusive shall at the request 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 or Chief Engineer of Haryana, PWD (B&R) Branch, to be nominated by designation by the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana, PWD (B&R) Branch, at the relevant time. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a government servant or that he had to deal with the matters to which the contract relates and that in course of his duties as a Government servant, he had C.W.P NO. 17322 OF 2008 -3- expressed his views on all or any of the matters in dispute. The arbitrator to whom the matter 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 state at which it was left by the predecessor”. Since no award was passed by respondent No.2 till his retirement, the impugned order to the extent of closing the arbitration proceedings cannot sustain and the same is hereby set aside. Respondent No.1-University is directed to nominate a new Arbitrator, as per the agreement, who shall proceed further with the arbitration proceedings from the stage from where respondent No.2 left, with an advance notice to the petitioners and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, as early as possible. Disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. MARCH 30, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE