IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPLN. FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR NO. 12 OF 2009 M/S. DEVDATTA P. SHIRODKAR THROUGH PARTNERS ... Applicant Versus THE CHIEF ENGINEER WESTERN ZONE II CENTRAL AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Premanand Kholkar,Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Asst. Solicitor General for the Respondents. Coram:- S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. Date:- 26th March, 2010 P.C. This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator and to make an order of reference of the disputes listed in Exhibit C of the application. 2. It is not necessary to refer to the merits of the case for the purpose of this application. Clause 25 of the agreement between the parties pertains to arbitration. The relevant part of sub clause (ii) thereof reads as under : "Except where the decision has become final, binding and conclusive in terms of Sub Para (i) above disputes or difference shall be referred for adjudication through arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer, CPWD, in charge of the work or if there be no Chief Engineer, the administrative head of the said CPWD. If the arbitrator so appointed is unable or unwilling to act or resigns his appointment or vacates his office due to any reason whatsoever, another sole arbitrator shall be appointed in the manner aforesaid. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. It is a term of this contract that the party invoking arbitration shall give a list of disputes with amounts claimed in respect of each such dispute along with the notice for appointment of arbitrator and giving reference to the rejection by the Chief Engineer of the appeal. It is also a term of this contract that no person other than a person appointed by such Chief Engineer CPWD or the administrative head of the CPWD, as aforesaid should act as arbitrator and if for any reason that is not possible, the matter shall not be referred to arbitration at all..............." 3. The Applicant contends that despite the application having been made for appointment of an arbitrator the Chief Engineer did not appoint an arbitrator. 4. There was no refusal per se for an appointment of an arbitrator. The Respondents by a letter dated 9.3.2009 requested the Applicant to apply in the prescribed proforma. 5. I will proceed on the basis that the Respondents were not entitled to insist on the application being made in the proforma prescribed by the Respondents. The insistence to do so however does not indicate any mala-fides on the part of the Respondents. In the circumstances, even assuming that I have powers, I do intend appointing an arbitrator without reference to Arbitration clause. In other words, I intend appointing an arbitrator as provided for in clause 25 itself. 6. A list of three arbitrators has been furnished on behalf of the Respondents. 7. Shri A.P. Joshi is appointed as an arbitrator with the consent of the Applicant. I have appointed Shri Joshi as a sole arbitrator as he resides in Mumbai whereas the other two arbitrators mentioned in the list reside in New Delhi. This is keeping the costs in mind. 8. The Applicant and Respondents can always make an application to the learned arbitrator to try and keep the hearings as far as possible in Goa as it would be less expensive for one person to come to Goa than it would be for all the parties, their advocates and witnesses, if any, to travel to Mumbai. I have no reason to believe that the arbitrator would turn down the request if it is otherwise reasonable. 9. The application is accordingly disposed of. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. at*