Arb. Case No.102 of 2010 15.3.2011 Present: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents. Heard and gone through the record. Petitioner was awarded work of construction of some building for tuberculosis sanitarium at Dharampur. After he had started the work and had collected material on the spot, a Minister visited the site and suggested that construction be raised at a different site. Petitioner then served a notice dated 21.6.2010, copy Annexure A, for appointment of Arbitrator, in terms of clause 25 of the agreement, which provides that in the event of any dispute arising between the parties, the same shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole Arbitrator, to be nominated by the Engineer-Incharge or Chief Engineer. Chief Engineer, to whom notice Annexure-A, was issued did not respond. Therefore, petitioner filed the present petition for appointment of Arbitrator, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In reply, respondents have stated that after getting notice from the petitioner, Chief Engineer required the concerned Superintending Engineer, to examine the matter personally and take necessary action to settle the dispute, after hearing the parties. At the same time, it is stated that Chief Engineer directed the Superintending Engineer to settle the dispute, as aforesaid, vide letter dated 19.11.2009, that is to say, even prior to issue of notice Annexure A, dated 21.6.2010. - 2 - Arb. Case 102/2010 In any case, the reply shows that Chief Engineer did not appoint Superintending Engineer as Arbitrator, but gave direction to him for settling the dispute, on account of his being the Incharge of the Circle in which the work falls. In view of the above stated position, petition is allowed and Superintending Engineer, PWD (Arbitration), posted at Solan is appointed as Arbitrator (by designation). Petition stands disposed of. March 15, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.