IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.59 of 2010 Date of decision : March 25, 2011 Mohinder 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. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was awarded work of construction of a canal, by I & PH Department of Himachal Pradesh, vide Agreement Ex. P-1. The Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, i.e. Clause No.65, for settlement of disputes, if any, arising between the parties, by arbitration. Petitioner alleges that when he was in the midst of executing the work, I & PH Department stopped him from executing the work and has not paid the payments due to him, on account of the work already executed by him. He also disputes the validity of the action of the respondents, in not allowing him to continue with the work. Thus, according to the petitioner, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… disputes have arisen, within the meaning of Clause No.65 of the Agreement, which are referable to the arbitration of a person, to be nominated by the Chief Engineer, I & PH Department. 3. Petitioner issued a notice, in accordance with the aforesaid Arbitration Clause to the Chief Engineer, I & PH Department, for nominating an Arbitrator. Notice is dated 16th August, 2010. Its copy is Annexure P-5. Despite service of notice, the Chief Engineer, did not appoint any Arbitrator. 4. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which it is stated that the petitioner had been intimated, by the Superintending Engineer, vide letter dated 8th November, 2010, copy Annexure R-XXXIII, that the Chief Engineer, I & PH Department, had not considered his request for appointment of Arbitrator, because the notice was not on the prescribed proforma and it was also not signed by the petitioner himself. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that since the notice was not on the prescribed format, the same has not been considered and that the petitioner may seek appointment of Arbitrator, by the Chief Engineer, by serving fresh notice, on prescribed format. 6. Reply of the respondents and the submission of the learned Deputy Advocate General are without merit. There is no prescribed format, as per Clause No.65 of the Agreement, executed between the parties. Moreover, it was …3… not the Chief Engineer, who conveyed that the notice was required to be on the prescribed format, but a Superintending Engineer of the Project, who wrote the aforesaid letter dated 8th November, 2010, Annexure R-XXXIII. Further, this letter was written after the expiry of one month period, within which the Chief Engineer was supposed to have appointed the Arbitrator, on receipt of notice Annexure P-5. Not only this, this letter was written a month after the present petition had been filed, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for appointment of Arbitrator and also after appearance had been put in by the respondents, in this matter, through Assistant Advocate General. 7. In view of the abovestated position, petition is allowed and Shri Naresh Kumar Sood, Advocate, is appointed as Arbitrator, with his consent. His fee is fixed at `40,000/- plus `5,000/-, on account of ministerial expenses. Fee and ministerial expenses shall be paid by the petitioner, in the first instance, and the liability for payment of fee and ministerial expenses shall ultimately be adjudged by the Arbitrator himself, while giving his award. Petition stands disposed of. March 25, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J