IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.101 of 2010 Date of decision : March 31, 2011 Suresh Verma …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Manohr Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was awarded work of construction of a road by Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, represented by the respondents, vide agreement dated 1.12.2008, clause 25 of which says that in the event of a dispute, arising between the parties, matter shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator, to be nominated by the Engineer-in-Chief or the Chief Engineer. Petitioner’s allegation is that when the work was in progress and the petitioner reached the point, which falls in a forest area, work was got stopped by the forest department. According to him, work has not been awarded to him thereafter nor has he been paid anything for the work already executed. Thus, a dispute having arisen, he approached the Engineer-in-Chief, vide notice, copy Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Annexure–A, which is dated 1.10.2010, but the Engineer-in- Chief has not appointed any Arbitrator. Hence, the present petition for appointment of an Arbitrator. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that condition 43 of the tender notice, disentitles the petitioner to any compensation, if the site cannot be made available to him. Whether the petitioner can claim compensation, on account of the site being not made available, on account of objection by the forest department and whether the petitioner has carried out any work and is entitled to the cost of that work, are disputes, which requires determination by the Arbitrator. 4. In view of the above stated position, present petition is allowed and Shri M.D. Sharma, a retired District and Sessions Judge, is appointed as Arbitrator. His fee is fixed at `30,000/-. In addition to that he shall be paid `5,000/-, on account of ministerial expenses. Arbitrator’s fee and ministerial expenses shall be paid by the petitioner, in the first instance. Ultimate liability for payment of fee and ministerial expenses shall be determined by the Arbitrator himself. Petition stands disposed of. March 31, 2011 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J