IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.31 of 2010 Date of decision : August 4, 2010 Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Reply has been filed. 2. Heard. 3. There had been an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, under which some work was awarded to the petitioner by the respondents. According to the petitioner, work has been executed, but the respondents have not refunded the earnest money and the security money. 4. Agreement executed between the parties provides for adjudication of any dispute, arising between the parties, by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer. Petitioner applied to the Engineer-in-Chief, vide Annexure P-2, for appointing an Arbitrator. He did not receive any response. So, on expiry of 30 days period, petitioner Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… made the present petition for appointment of an Arbitrator, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 5. Respondents have stated that the work was completed in the year 2002, while request for appointment of Arbitrator was made in the year 2010, when the claim had already become barred by time. 6. Objection raised by the respondents that the claim has become barred by time, cannot be a ground for not referring the dispute to the Arbitrator. It is for the Arbitrator to adjudicate whether the claim is stale or alive. In view of the abovestated position, present petition is allowed and Shri O.P. Mahajan, Retired Chief Engineer, Nav Jyoti Lodge, Shankli, Shimla, is appointed as Arbitrator in the case. His fee is fixed at Rs.20,000/-. August 4, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J