IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Cases No.1 & 2 of 2010 Date of decision : May 21, 2010 Arb.Cases No.1 & 2 of 2010 M/s Hill Construction and Engineering Company (In both the cases). …Petitioners. Versus The Chief Engineer and another (In both the cases) …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, in both the cases. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, in both the cases. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) By means of this order two Arbitration Cases, particulars of which are given in the title of this order, are being disposed of, as similar questions are raised in both the cases. 2. Petitioner is a construction and engineering firm. Respondents invited tenders, for executing two different works. Petitioner was amongst the tenderers. His tenders were accepted and works were awarded to him. He executed the works, but the money due to him was not paid. So, he approached the Chief Engineer to appoint Arbitrator, in terms of the Arbitration Clause contained in Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the agreement. Chief Engineer has rejected petitioner’s prayer, on the grounds that works executed by the petitioner are not satisfactory and final bills have also not been submitted. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 4. Admittedly, there were agreements between the parties. Also, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has executed both the works. He has not been made the final payment, for the works executed by him. This is also not in dispute. That means there is a dispute between the parties. Arbitration clause says that the dispute shall be referred to an Arbitrator, to be nominated by the Chief Engineer. Chief Engineer, having been approached, has refused to appoint the Arbitrator, on the aforesaid two grounds. 5. The first ground, on which the prayer has been rejected by the Chief Engineer, itself is a disputed question, which requires adjudication by the Arbitrator. As regards the second ground, petitioner has filed copies of the final bills, which he submitted to the respondents. Consequently both the petitions are allowed and Shri O.P. Mahajan, retired Chief Engineer from Electricity Board, is appointed as Arbitrator, in both the matters. His fees is fixed at Rs.60,000/-, in both the cases, which shall be inclusive of stationery and ministerial expenses. Initially, the fees shall …3… be paid by the petitioner and the question as to the liability for payment of fees shall also be finally determined by the Arbitrator. Both the petitions stand disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, as having become infructuous. May 21, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J