Arbitration Case No.12 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. Arbitration Case No.12 of 2007. Date of decision: 30.1.2009 The Bahin Coop. L& C.Society Ltd. ....Petitioner. vs. Haryana State through Collector Faridabad and others. .. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. --- Present: Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Surinder K.Bishnoi, DAG Haryana for the respondents. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the rival parties have invited this Court's attention to clause 25A of the contract under reference, so as to assert, that there was an arbitration clause agreed to by the parties at the time of execution of the contract. Learned counsel for the parties also invited this Court's attention specially to sub clause 2 thereof. Sub clause 2 of clause 25A of the contract under reference is being extracted hereunder:- “ All disputes of differences in respect of which the decision is not final and conclusive shall at the request in writing of either party, made in communication sent through registered A.D. Post be referred to the sole arbitration of any serving Superintending Er. Or Chief Er. of Haryana PWD B&R Branch to be nominated by designation by the Engineer-in-Chief Haryana P.W.D. B&R Branch at the relevant time, it will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a Government servant or that he had to deal with the matters to which the contract relates and that in the course of his duties as a Government servant he had expressed his Arbitration Case No.12 of 2007 2 views on all or any of the matters in dispute. The arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office his successor in office as such shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor.” It is not a matter of dispute that originally the Superintending Engineer, Rohtak Circle, PWD (B&R) Branch, Rohtak, was appointed as Arbitrator on the basis of a request made by the petitioner herein. The Arbitrator so appointed was promoted as Chief Engineer (Bridges) Haryana PWD (B&R) Branch, Chandigarh on 24.11.2006. He, therefore, addressed a communication dated 4.12.2006 to the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, informing him his inability to continue as Arbitrator for the dispute under reference. The communication addressed by the earlier Arbitrator dated 4.12.2006, is the basis of the claim at the hands of the petitioner for appointment of a new Arbitrator in substitution of the erstwhile Arbitrator. Having perused sub clause 2, extracted hereinabove, it is apparent that the Arbitrator earlier appointed on vacating the office held by him shall cease to be an Arbitrator, and that his successor to the said office would be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by the original Arbitrator. In view of the aforesaid requirement of sub clause 2 of clause 25A of the contract under reference, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the successor of the first arbitrator presently holding the post of Superintending Engineer, Rohtak Circle, PWD (B&R) Branch, Rohtak, be appointed as an Arbitrator, so as to continue the earlier proceedings from the stage at which they were left by the original Arbitrator. In view of the joint request of the learned counsel for the Arbitration Case No.12 of 2007 3 parties, as has been noticed hereinabove, the respondents shall direct the continuation of the arbitration proceedings, as has been noticed hereinabove, by the present incumbent of the post of Superintending Engineer, Rohtak Circle, PWD (B&R) Branch, Rohtak. Parties are directed to appear before the aforesaid Arbitrator on 2.3.2009. Disposed of accordingly. January 30, 2009 rk ( J.S.Khehar ) Judge