IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.85 of 2010 Date of decision : March 31, 2011 Virender Paul Singh …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. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.S. Bhogal, Advocate for the petitioner. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was awarded work of construction of a canal by the respondents, in the year 2004, vide agreement, copy Annexure C1, clause 25 of which provides for settlement of disputes, arising between the parties, by an Arbitrator, to be nominated by the Engineer-in-Chief or the Chief Engineer. Work was completed in February, 2007. Petitioner made some demand in his communication dated 18.6.2008, copy Annexure C-2. When there was no response to that communication, a notice dated 11.7.2008, copy Annexure C-3, was served upon the Engineer-in-chief, demanding appointment of an Arbitrator. No Arbitrator was appointed. Reminders were also issued, but to no avail. Petitioner then Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… filed the present petition, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. 3. Reply has been filed, in which contradictory stands have been taken. While replying para 6(i), respondents have stated that final bill is ready for payment, but it has not been released, on account of petitioner’s failure to accept the money. Date of the bill or the date of refusal of the amount of bill by the petitioner is not indicated. At the same time, it is stated in para 8 that claim is highly belated. 4. Petitioner had demanded appointment of Arbitrator within a month of his making the demand for release of money due to him. Demand of money was made, vide communication dated 18.6.2008. Appointment of Arbitrator was sought vide notice dated 11.7.2008. 5. No Arbitrator having been appointed by the Engineer-in-Chief, who as per Clause-25 of the agreement, has the authority to nominate an Arbitrator, on being approached by either of the party, present petition is allowed and Superintending Engineer (Arbitration), Solan, is appointed as Arbitrator in the matter, by designation. Petition stands disposed of. March 31, 2011 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J