IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQ. CASE No.36 of 2007 M/S NATH & COMPANY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With REQ. CASE No.37 of 2007 M/S NATH & COMPANY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With REQ. CASE No.38 of 2007 M/S NATH & COMPANY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With REQ. CASE No.39 of 2007 M/S NATH & COMPANY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With REQ. CASE No.40 of 2007 M/S NATH & COMPANY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With REQ. CASE No.41 of 2007 M/S NATH & COMPANY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With REQ. CASE No.42 of 2007 M/S NATH & COMPANY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 17.7.2008. Heard Sri Uma Shankar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Jha, Government Advocate, J. C. to G.A.3 and J. C. to G.A.4. In all the cases, petitioner is the same. The petitioner is a works’ contractor. He entered into - 2 - seven separate agreement for executing the works contract with the respondent Executive Engineer. Details whereof are given in paragraph 3 and 4 of the application. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after execution of the works contract dispute arose between the parties whereafter notice was given to the Executive Engineer to appoint arbitrator vide request dated 27.2.2006 (Annexure-4) but the executive Engineer did not respond to the same. Present request cases have been filed along with the copy of the agreement entered into between the parties, praying therein to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer for appointment of the arbitrator by filing the counter affidavit in three request cases bearing no. 36/07, 39/07 and 41/07 whereas in rest of the cases no counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Learned counsel for the respondents have disputed the existence of the arbitration clause by virtue of resolution of the State Government dated 18.11.1992 published in Official Gazette 23.11.1992 - 3 - as also on some other grounds enumerated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the matter of deletion of arbitration clause 23 of the agreements through the aforesaid resolution of the State Government dated 18.11.1992 has already been decided in Request Case No. 19 of 2006 as such the said ground taken by the learned counsel for the State has no leg to stand. In support of it, the photocopy of order dated 30.10.2006 passed in aforesaid Request Case No. 19 of 2006 has been filed. So far as the other grounds taken in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit is concerned, all are hyper technical and do not require any elaboration. All these matters can be taken before the arbitrator under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. For the reasons indicated above, all the seven request cases are hereby allowed. Sri B. N. Sahay, a retired District Judge, is appointed as arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Parties are directed to appear before him within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Mr. B. N. Sahay shall be at - 4 - liberty to fix his own remuneration as also the procedure to be undergone during the arbitral proceedings. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to Mr. B. N. Sahay at his residential address (A/120 Raj Kishori Complex Mulchand Path, Kankerbagh behind Kanti Factory, Patna). kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)