IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.94 of 2010 Date of decision : March 31, 2011 M/s Lakhanpal Fabricators …Petitioner Versus Union of India and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.S. Bhogal, Advocate for the petitioner. For the Respondents : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Central Govt. Counsel. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Reply filed. Be taken on record. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Petitioner approached the Director General of Border Roads Organization, for appointment of an Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 70 of the agreement, copy Annexure C-1, which was executed between the petitioner and the respondents, in relation to the work awarded to the petitioner, under the aforesaid agreement. Arbitrator having not been appointed within time limited by law, petitioner approached this Court, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. After filing of the present petition, respondents have appointed Col. S.S. Pathania, as Arbitrator. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very man, who has been appointed as Arbitrator by the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… respondents may be appointed by the order of the Court also, so that on transfer of that man, who happens to be a functionary of Board Roads Organization, respondents or the Director General, Border Roads Organization, may not appoint the person coming in his place. 5. In view of the aforesaid apprehension, it is ordered that Col. S.S. Pathania, Director (Contracts), Project Deepak, shall remain Arbitrator, until the matter is finally adjudicated upon by him. Petition stands disposed of. March 31, 2011 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J