IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQUEST CASE No.5 of 2008 ---- M/S Rajendra Singh at Cantt Road, Garighana, Khagaul, District- Patna. -- Petitioner. Versus 1. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 2. The Chief Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, Patna. 4. The Divisional Engineer (Br.) East Central Railway, Danapur, Patna. 5. The Divisional Engineer (Cord) East Central Railway, Danapur, Patna. -- Respondents. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, Advocate. ---- 04. 06.08.2009 This request case has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve, settle and decide the dispute and differences between the petitioner and the respondent-railway authorities in terms of agreement No.2/Misc/DNR/98-99 dated 08.09.1998 (Annexure-1) executed by the then Deputy Chief Engineer (Bridge) Eastern Railway, Danapur, Patna, now recognized as Divisional Engineer (Bridge) East Central Railway, Danapur, (respondent no.4) for and on behalf of the President of India (Union of India) and also by the petitioner-Company through one of its partners Raju Kumar Singh. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that he completed the work as per the agreement, but the amount as per the said agreement was not paid to him and hence the petitioner sent a letter dated 27.09.2006 (annexure-3) through its counsel stating that although the - 2 - work was completed, but the amount agreed upon was not paid. To the said petition a reply was sent by the respondent-authorities on 25.10.2006 (Annexure-4) disputing the claim of completion of work and stating that payment has already been made equal to the worth of the work done. The petitioner again sent a rejoinder dated 16.12.2006 (Annexure-5) to the respondents-authorities giving the details of the work done and their respective values. 3. It appears that even after lapse of about seven months (about 200 days) no answer was sent by the railway-authorities and hence the petitioner sent a petition dated 23.07.2007 (Annexure-6) to the railway-authorities demanding arbitration as per the agreement in question dated 08.09.1998 (Annexure-1) and also according to Clauses 62 and 63 of the General Conditions of Contract and Standard Specification, 1969 (Annexure-2). However, when the said demand of arbitration was not acceded to, nor reply was given by the respondents for more than eight months (about 250 days), the instant request case has been filed by the petitioner on 16.04.2008. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- authorities vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and presses respondents’ counter affidavit dated 19.05.2009 and also submits that the petitioner has neither completed the work, nor has acted in accordance with the provisions of law and the agreement and all the dues payable to the petitioner have already been calculated and paid, hence petitioner’s claim is fit to be rejected. - 3 - 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the averments and materials produced by the respective parties, it is quite apparent that the petitioner has taken steps in accordance with the specific provisions of law and agreement. So far the dispute raised by the petitioner is concerned, it has been objected to by the respondents and hence this court finds it expedient to appoint an Arbitrator for resolving, settling and deciding the said dispute and differences between the parties. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nagendra Rai, a retired Judge of this court, is appointed as an Arbitrator for the aforesaid purpose in accordance with the specific provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Both the parties shall approach the said Arbitrator with a copy of this order, whereafter the Arbitrator will fix the dates and his remuneration and expenses and proceed in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 6. With the aforesaid directions, this request case is disposed of. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)