Arb.Case No. 32 of 2011 12.7.2011 Present:- Mr. J.S.Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suneet Goel, counsel for the petitioner. Respondents have been served but none has put in appearance on their behalf. Arb. Case No. 32 of 2011 This is an application for terminating the mandate of the Arbitrator under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In Arbitration Case No. 15 of 2007 on 12.5.2008, this Court had given the following direction:- “……Thus, it is clear that these allegations were not denied and stand admitted. It is not only a question that the proceedings were conducted during the tenure of the Arbitrator but the person who has passed the award once he was Incharge of the work cannot act as Arbitrator and the principles of natural justice were not followed in passing the award by the Arbitrator and the award passed by the Arbitrator is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. The matter shall be sent back to the Government, who shall appoint an Arbitrator to hear the parties and pass the award. In case the said Arbitrator is not holding the post of Superintending Engineer (South), HIMUDA, Shimla, the reference shall be made to the said Superintending Engineer by designation who shall hear the parties and give his award accordingly.” 2. The CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA vide memo dated 3.7.2008 appointed the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration), HPPWD, Solan, who withdrew from the case as recorded in the - 2 - proceeding dated 19.3.2009. The CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA thereafter again appointed Superintending Engineer (South) HIMUDA as Arbitrator vide memo dated 27.4.2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Superintending Engineer (South), HIMUDA cannot act as Arbitrator in the dispute inasmuch as he is required to take administrative decisions qua the work in dispute. This Court on 12.5.2008 directed the Government to appoint Arbitrator but instead of Government, the CEO-cum-Secretary is appointing the Arbitrator(s). It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of Superintending Engineer (South), HIMUDA by the CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA is not in accordance with the directions given by this Court on 12.5.2008. There is substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, the mandate of Superintending Engineer (South), HIMUDA as Arbitrator appointed by the CEO-cum-Secretary vide memo dated 27.4.2009 is terminated and the Government is directed to comply the direction dated 12.5.2008 given by this Court in Arbitration Case No. 15 of 2007 by appointing an Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The petition stands disposed of. July 12, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge