IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Arbitration Case No. 104 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 24.4.2009. M/s Subhash Chander Garg, Govt. Contrators & Builders .... Applicant. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. .... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present:- Mr. P.S.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Hemant Gupta, J (Oral). Petitioner has sough an appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short the 'Act') in respect of dispute arisen out of Contract-Agreement No.1 of 1994-95. As per the petitioner, the said Contract-agreement was entered into between the parties for construction of building for Diploma in Micro Proces, including Guest House and Hostal for 60 Girls and 60 Boys including E.I and Public Health Services in Government Polytecnic College Ferozepur. Earlier dispute between the parties were referred to Shri G.S.Mann, Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur, vide communication dated 10.11.1998. However, no Award was given by Shri Mann. On 27.10.2004, the petitioner was informed by the Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle, PWD (B&R) Branch, Arbitration Case No. 104 of 2007 -2- Ferozepur, that he is not the sole Arbitrator for settling the dispute and fresh appointment of the Arbitrator is required from the Competent Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner sought appointment of Arbitrator, vide communication dated 4.12.2004 (Annexure P-6). Vide Annexure P-7, the petitioner send a legal notice to the Chief Engineer, PWD B&R, Branch, Mini Secretariat, Patiala, to appoint an Arbitrator, within a period of 15 days, but yet no Arbitrator was appointed. Thereafter, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked. Though, the reply filed on behalf of State does not contain any meaningful averment, but Ms. Madhu Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out from the record that the petitioner has not filed even statement of claim before Shri G.S.Mann, the previous abritrator for a period of six years. Therefore, at this stage, Arbitrator should not be appointed in respect of stale claim. Admittedly, Shri. Mann, who was appointed as Arbitrator, has not given any Award. It was open to the Arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings on account of failure of the petitioner to submit the statement of claim. Since arbitration proceedings have not been concluded by the Arbitrator one way or the other, therefore, the mere long passage of time will not render the remedy of arbirtation availed by the petitioner as nugatory. The respondents have not appointed an Arbitrator. In terms of Clause 67 of the agreement, all the dispute or differences are to be decided by an Arbitrator appointed amongst the officers of the rank of serving Superintending Engineer of the department. After long time, it would not Arbitration Case No. 104 of 2007 -3- be reasonable to relegate the parties for adjudication of the dispute to serving Superintending Engineer as an arbitrator. The Chief Engineer has failed to appoint an Arbitrator inspite the demand raised by the petitioner. The dispute between the parties is whether the petitioner is entitled to additional amount on account of escalation of price. Such dispute can be settled by a legally trained mind as well. Therefore, in exercise of power under Section 11 (6) of the Act, I appoint Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Former District Judge, Resident of House No.93-Punjab Bagh, Patiala, as Arbitrator. The Arbitrator is free to fix his fee in consultation with parties. Parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 25.5.2009 for further proceedings in accordance with law. April 24, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) tripti Judge