RAJESH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) TENDERS were invited for executing certain work, by Public Works Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner was one of the tenderers. His tender was accepted and work was assigned to him. He executed the work. He alleged that his machinery remained idle for quite some time and claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 2,15,54,000/-, on this count. Demand was made, but there was no response. He made an application to the Chief Engineer (South) for appointing an Arbitrator, in terms of Clause-25 of the Agreement, which provides for reference of disputes, arising out of the agreement, to arbitration of a person to be nominated by the Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer (South).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner would have accepted the appointment of Superintending Engineer (Arbitrator), even after the expiry of the prescribed time limit of thirty days, but the said Superintending Engineer does not have the ministerial staff to assist, with the result that for the last nine months he has not given any award, though a number of cases are ripe for dictating awards.