IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Case No.72 of 2010 Decided on: March 18, 2011 Arien New Delhi Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner Versus NTPC Limited Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner was awarded some work by the respondent, in connection with Koldam Hydro Power Project. Work was awarded, vide letter Annexure C-2. The work awarding letter Annexure C-2 was cancelled before start of the work. After the award of work and before the recall of the work awarding letter, petitioner had carried some machinery to the spot and had also taken some other steps to execute the work. He claims compensation from the respondent for the same. There are some other claims also, which the petitioner submitted to the respondent. Respondent did not pay anything to the petitioner, who then addressed a letter to General Manager, NTPC. There Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… was no response from that General Manager. Petitioner then applied to this Court for appointment of Arbitrator. That application was permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to file fresh petition, because the notice was defective. Thereafter, notice dated 14.9.2010 was served upon the General Manager, who is the named Arbitrator, as per clause 56 of General Conditions of Award letter. Said General Manager did not respond and, therefore, petitioner filed the present petition on 1.11.2010. 2. Reply has been filed, in which it is stated that Arbitrator has already been appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director of NTPC, in accordance with General Condition 56.1 and the decision conveyed to the petitioner, vide letter dated 1.11.2010, copy Annexure C-14. 3. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, says that letter Annexure C-14 bears dated signatures of DGM(Law), date being 2.11.2010; and appointment of Arbitrator has been made by the Chairman and Managing Director, after the filing of present petition. Argument has been noticed only to be rejected. The letter reads that Chairman and Managing Director, NTPC has already appointed the Arbitrator and the person appointed as …3… Arbitrator is Shri R.D Gupta, Retired Member of UP Electricity Regulatory Commission. 4. There is no time limit for appointment of an Arbitrator by the authority, named for appointment of an Arbitrator in the agreement, in which, in addition to naming such authority for appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitrator is also named. As a matter of fact, it is after the named Arbitrator expresses his unwillingness or inability to act or he does not respond to the call for acting as such for quite some time, that the person named as authority for nominating an Arbitrator, in his place, is required to be approached. 5. In the present case, even without the petitioner approaching the authority, named for appointing an Arbitrator, i.e. Chairman and Managing Director of NTPC has appointed the Arbitrator, because the named arbitrator did not enter upon arbitration, despite being requested by the petitioner, vide communication dated 14.9.2010. 6. In view of the above stated position, the present petition is dismissed being infructuous, as the matter already stands referred to the Arbitrator. Petition stands disposed of. March 18, 2011(ss) (Surjit Singh ), J.