IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.39 of 2011 Date of decision : September 28, 2011 Mrs. Kamlesh Puri …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …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 Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents, for construction of a road. Clause 24.1 of the Agreement, which is Annexure C-1, provides for the procedure for settlement of disputes that may arise between the parties. As per this clause, initially, the dispute shall be referred to the competent authority, prescribed in the contract data, which is part of the Agreement and if any party is aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority, then the dispute can be referred to the arbitration of a person to be nominated by the Engineer- in-Chief/Chief Engineer. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. A dispute having arisen, according to the petitioner, notice, copy Annexure C-2, was sent to the Engineer-in-Chief, for nominating an Arbitrator, for adjudication of the dispute. The said Engineer-in-Chief having not acted upon that notice, the petitioner has approached this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 4. As noticed hereinabove, dispute is required to be referred to the competent authority, which, as per contract data, is the Chief Engineer, in this case. Petitioner did not approach the competent authority (Chief Engineer), for settling the dispute and straightway approached the Engineer-in-Chief, for nominating an Arbitrator. Stage of nominating an Arbitrator would come, as per Clause-25 of the Agreement, only after the recourse is had to Clause 24.1 of the Arbitration Agreement, which provides for settlement of dispute by competent authority. The present petition is, thus, not competent and maintainable. Hence, the same is dismissed. Petition stands disposed of. September 28, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J