1 S.B. Arbitration Application No.60/2007 M/s. Chhangni Ram Geholt vs The Chief Engineer,PWD,Jaipur & Ors. Date of order : 28.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. BD Purohit,for the petitioner. Mr. Mukul Singhvi,for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant being a proprietorship firm submitted its offer in response to the notice inviting tender dated 8.1.2004 for work of supply of material for repair of road patches at various roads under PWD District Division II, Jodhpur. Its tender being the lowest was accepted and work order no.5549 dated 12.1.2004 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4. Copy of the work order has been placed on record as Annex.1. The petitioner was required to complete the work by 7.3.2004. The value of the work as per the work order was Rs.4,95,995/-. A formal agreement no.EED/11/101/003-04 was executed between the parties. According to the petitioner, the original agreement is in power and possession of the respondent. In this work order, the dispute arose between the parties and the dispute is not denied by the respondents. There is a clause no.23 of the contract, which provides referring the 2 matter to the standing committee for settlement of dispute. Ultimately, the Chief Engineer, Jaipur directed the respondent no.2 – Addl. Chief Engineer, PWD, Jodhpur Zone Jodhpur vide its letter No.D853 dated 21.1.2006 conveying that petitioner may approach for arbitration in clause 23 of the conditions of the contract. In furtherance to the direction of the Chief Engineer, PWD to respondent no.2, the respondent no.4- Executive Engineer of the department asked the petitioner to present the entire matter under clause 23 of the agreement. The petitioner, thereafter submitted application for settlement of dispute under clause 23 of the conditions of the contract. The petitioner also submitted claim of Rs.1.30 lacs. The petitioner also remitted the requisite amount in favour of the Chief Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan, but instead of the said request, the respondents did not take any action in the matter nor matter was sent to the Standing Committee. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court for appointment of the arbitrator. Since it is a case where the dispute is alive and petitioner approached the respondents by sending a request for settlement of dispute through arbitral proceedings though under clause 23 to Standing Committee and the respondents have not referred the matter to the Standing 3 Committee nor it has been registered by the Standing Committee, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to have the arbitrator appointed by this Court. In view of the above, this application is allowed and Sh. Rajendra Mehta, Retired Superintending Engineer (Irrigation), Government of Rajasthan, presently residing at 9A, Sector 7, New Power House Road, Jodhpur (Raj) is appointed as arbitrator who may fixed his fees for arbitration and also expenses, which shall be payable by both the parties equally initially and ultimately the arbitrator may decide who shall be liable and to that extend. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-