IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Arbitration Application No. 6 of 2010 M/s Usha Breco Limited. .……… Applicant Versus Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar. ………. Respondent Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.C. Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. There is an agreement in writing between the parties. The agreement authorised the applicant to build and operate an aerial ropeway for a period of 30 years. The agreement also authorised the applicant to charge Rs. 2/- per passenger to use the said ropeway to and fro. The agreement further provided that such fare may be increased by mutual agreement between the parties. The applicant wanted to increase the fare. By a notice in writing, the applicant requested the respondent to agree to the proposal. The respondent, by a writing, declined to the proposal of the applicant to increase the fare. As a result, a dispute cropped-up between the parties. 2. The agreement contains an arbitration clause, in terms whereof, the parties to the agreement are obliged to appoint one arbitrator each. Inasmuch as the aforesaid dispute cropped-up, the applicant appointed its arbitrator and called upon the respondent, in writing, to appoint its arbitrator. The respondent has not appointed its arbitrator and hence this Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. It appears that on 24th July, 2009, the State Government interfered with the resolution of the board of the respondent dated 7th September, 2007, whereby it had agreed to appoint an arbitrator in the event appointment of arbitrator in relation to the subject agreement becomes necessary. In view of the said stand taken by the Government, the respondent has contended that it could not nominate or appoint its arbitrator. 2 4. The agreement is between two parties. The disputes, pertaining to the agreement, are in between two parties. The parties to the agreement have agreed to sort out such dispute in the manner provided in the agreement. The State Government could not take any step to prevent the respondent from discharging its lawful obligation under the agreement. The stand taken by the State Government, by issuing the said order dated 24th July, 2009, is not appropriate and the Court deprecates the same. 5. In the circumstances, I appoint Sri B.C. Kandpal, a retired Judge of this Court as Arbitrator nominated and appointed by the respondent in terms of the said arbitration clause contained in the said arbitration agreement. The respondent is directed to fix the remuneration of the Arbitrator and, thereupon, to serve a copy of this order upon him along with a letter requesting him to discharge the duties of Arbitrator indicating the remunerations to be paid to him. Let the respondent discharge its afore-mentioned obligations within a period of one month from today and let the Arbitrators hold their first sitting within two months from today. 6. The Application, accordingly, stands disposed of. (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 20.08.2010 G