------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Arb.Appeal No.1 of 2004. Decided on: June 18, 2009. State of H.P. and another. …… Appellants. Versus Rajesh Thakur and another. …….Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate general with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.1. R.B. Misra, J (oral). Heard. The present arbitration appeal has been preferred under Section 37 (1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in reference to the order dated 22.4.2004, passed in Arbitration Case No.66 of 2003. Relying on the said judgment dated 22.4.2004, this Court was pleased to dispose of Arbitration Appeal No.5 of 2006 on 26.5.2006, wherein the following observations have been given:- “From a perusal of the order of learned Single Judge, it appears that award of compensation on account of prolongation of work period, by the Arbitrator, was not assailed before the learned Single - 2 - Judge, during the hearing of the matter. Therefore, the appellants cannot be allowed to agitate this point in the present appeal. As regards the award, pertaining to extra items in accordance with rates, determined by the Engineer-in-Charge, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the agreement having not provided for the approval of the rates, settled by the Engineer-in-Charge, by chief Engineer or any other superior authority, the rates settled by Engineer-in-Charge were to be applied for working out the charges payable to the respondent- contractor for the extra items of work, executed by him. It is clear from a bare reading of sub-clause (v) of Clause12 that the rates were to be determined by the Engineer-in-Charge and the rates, so determined by him, did not require approval of any superior authority, including the Chief Engineer.” According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the present appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 26.5.2009, passed in Arbitration Appeal No.5 of 2006. Learned counsel for the State-appellants has however no objection regarding the legal position and judgment dated 26.5.06 of this court (DB) above mentioned. Keeping in view the prayer made by learned counsel for the parties, present appeal is accordingly disposed of. (R.B.Misra) Judge (Surinder Singh ) Judge June 18, 2009. (Pds)