IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.41 of 2008 Date of decision : March 15, 2010 M/s V.K. Sood Engineer …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Additional Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that there was an Arbitration Agreement between the parties and in terms of the Agreement Arbitrator was to be appointed, either by the Engineer-in-Chief or the Chief Engineer concerned. A dispute having arisen, according to the petitioner, Engineer-in-Chief was approached to appoint an Arbitrator in the year 2005, but he passed no orders on the application, Annexure RA, which was moved for the purpose. Thereafter, respondent also felt that a dispute had arisen and they were entitled to recover certain amount of money from the petitioner. So, the respondent approached the Chief Engineer, for appointment of an Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Arbitrator. Chief Engineer appointed a Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) as Arbitrator, vide order Annexure RB. After the appointment of Arbitrator, vide Annexure RB, petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondent, calling upon it to agree to the appointment of an independent/ impartial Arbitrator. Names of two retired Judges were suggested in the notice, copy of which is Annexure P-5. When no action was taken on that notice, the present petition was filed. 3. From the record I am satisfied that there was an Agreement for appointment of an Arbitrator for settlement of disputes that might arise between the parties, in the course of the execution of the work allotted by the respondent to the petitioner. I am also satisfied that some disputes required to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator have arisen. Respondent agrees that the appointment of Superintending Engineer as Arbitrator made vide Annexure RB may be revoked and some Arbitrator may be appointed by the Court. 4. Both the parties agree to the appointment of Shri S.K. Sharda, retired Chief Engineer, PWD, as Arbitrator. Therefore, said Shri S.K. Sharda is appointed as Arbitrator. His fee is fixed at Rs.60,000/-, which will be shared by both the sides equally. Sittings shall be held at Shimla. In case the Arbitrator visits some outstations, that is to say, places outside the Municipal area of Shimla town, …3… in connection with the arbitration proceedings, he shall be entitled to travelling expenses by Car, at the rates notified by the State Transport Authority, in addition to stay expenses in some good hotel plus daily allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day. 5. As a consequence of appointment of Shri S.K. Sharda as Arbitrator, appointment of Superintending Engineer made vide Annexure RB stands revoked. Now, Shri S.K. Sharda will enter upon arbitration and the entire record is directed to be sent to him by the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration), Solan, immediately, and in any case before 31st March, 2010. Petition stands disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of, as having become infructuous. March 15, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J