IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeal No. 14 of 2009 with Arbitration Appeal No. 13 of 2009. Date of Decision : November 12, 2010 Arb. Appeal No. 14 of 2009 Executive Engineer, National Highway Division H.P.P.W.D. Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. Appellant Versus M/s Astra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. & another Respondents Arb. Appeal No. 13 of 2009 Executive Engineer, National Highway Division H.P.P.W.D. Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. Appellant Versus M/s Astra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. & another. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant(s) (In both appeals). For the respondents : Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 (In both appeals). Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. OMP(M) No. 23 of 2009 in Arb. Appeal No. 14 of 2009 Delay condoned. Application allowed. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. OMP(M) No. 22 of 2009 in Arb. Appeal No. 13 of 2009 Delay condoned. Application allowed. 3. Arbitration Appeals No. 13 of 2009 and 14 of 2009. Admit. Heard with the consent of the parties. 4. Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since identical questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals. Vide judgment dated 25.8.2009 passed in Arbitration Cases No. 56 and 57 of 2004 a learned Single Judge of this Court accepted the objections filed by the contractor, set aside the order of the arbitrator and thereafter remanded the matter for fresh arbitration to Sh. J. S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate of this Court. The parties appeared before the learned Arbitrator. 5. The State filed these appeals in which the main point raised is that the Hon’ble Single Judge could not have appointed a fresh arbitrator and the matter could have only been remitted/remanded to the arbitrator who had earlier decided the matter. According to Ms. Nishi Goel, learned counsel the order was a consent order and therefore these appeals are not maintainable. We are not going into any of these contentions because we find that the appeals have become infructuous in view of order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the learned arbitrator which reads as follows:- 3 “CASE No. 56/2004 30.11.2009 Present: Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate Ld. Counsel for M/s Astra Construction. Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate for the respondents. Shri R. K. Garg, Executive Engineer, NH Division, Rampur Bushahr With Shri Hemant Kumar, Senior Assistant. Shri Suneet Goel has filed power of attorney for the claimant Executive Engineer, NH Division, Rampur, which is taken on record. The parties are informed that Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate, is instructing my in several matters in the High Court and other courts/tribunals and the parties have been specifically asked as to whether they have any objection to my continuing as the arbitrator on this ground. M/s Astra Construction have objection my proceeding to decide the matter. In view of the fact that M/s Astra Construction have entertained justifiable doubts relating to my independence and impartiality I do not deem it proper to proceed with the matter and propose to send the matter to the Hon’ble Court for appointing another arbitrator. Sd/- Arbitrator.” 6. In view of the fact that Sh. J. S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, has recused from the matter fresh arbitrator has to be appointed. Therefore, the matter may go back to the Hon’ble Single Judge who decided the matter originally who shall after hearing the contentions of both the parties decide as to whether the matter has 4 to be remitted to the arbitrator who had initially passed the award or a fresh arbitrator can be appointed. 7. We may make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions of the parties. Appeals stand disposed of so also the pending applications. No costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 12, 2010 (PK)