CHANDER SHEKHAR Vs. STATE OF HP AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition having been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act"), a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner claimant, for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute pertaining to work namely "Up-gradation of main rural link Pali to Shilag (L-033) and Shilag to Baragaon (L-034) Km. 0/0 to 11/0 (SH:- C/O RPFD, passing places, R/walls, Edging, M/t. , C. D. , Essential Vshape drain & essential Parapets etc. , in KM. 0/0 to 11/0) under PMGSY/Bharat Nirman Yojna Package No. HP-08-125 (phase-VI additional), in terms of clause 25 of Agreement No. 2 for the year 2007-2008.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner-claimant, who is a class-1 Government Contractor, entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 vide agreement No. 2 for the work referred herein above, at a contract price of Rs. 2, 34, 39,199/-. Though pursuant to aforesaid award letter made/issued in favour of the petitioner-claimant, he started work on the site, but fact remains that work in question could not be completed within the stipulated time. During execution of work, petitionerclaimant expressed certain difficulties and accordingly, intimated the department, rather requested it to provide him with all mandatory permissions for carrying out work through the forest land. Since petitioner-claimant was unable to execute the work within the stipulated period, work done by him, was not measured, as a consequence of which, dispute arose inter-se parties. Petitioner invoked clause-24 of agreement (Annexure P-1), which provides for disputes redressal system. Vide communication dated 23. 9. 2017 i. e. Annexure P-2, petitioner sent a communication to Chief Engineer, Mandi Zone, HPPWD, Mandi, raising therein his claim qua the dispute allegedly arose inter-se the parties. Perusal of Annexure P-3 i. e. communication dated 5. 8. 2007, clearly suggests that respondent-department acceding to the aforesaid request having been made by the petitioner-claimant by invoking clause-24 of the agreement, constituted a technical committee consisting of three officers for necessary verification of measurement as claimed by the petitioner under the Disputes Redressal System in respect of work "Up-gradation of main rural link Pali to Shilag (L-033) and Shilag to Baragaon (L-034) Km. 0/0 to 11/0 (SH: C/O RPFD, R/Wall, B/Wall, M/T CD, essential V-Shape drain & essential parapets and road signboard etc. in KM. 0/0 to 11/0)" under PMGSY/Bharat Nirman Yojna (Phase-VI additional) Package No. 08-125. Since respondent- department despite there being constitution of technical committee in terms of clause-24 of the agreement, failed to render its decision with the specified period of 45 days, petitioner-claimant vide communication dated 13. 9. 2017, addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief. HPPWD, Nirman Bhawan, Shimla, made a request for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes in respect of work referred herein above, by resorting to clause-25 of the agreement.

(3.) Taking note of the aforesaid request having been made by the petitioner, Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, sent a communication to the Superintending Engineer, Ist Circle, HPPWD, Mandi, vide communication dated 27. 9. 2017 (Annexure P5) requesting therein to send a detailed report of matter along with copy of the agreement so that further steps are taken in the matter by the office of Engineer-in-Chief. However fact remains that after issuance of aforesaid communication, no steps are taken by the respondentdepartment for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of request having been made by the petitioner-claimant and as such, he is compelled to initiate proceedings in this regard under Section 11 (6) of the Act, praying therein for appointment of an Arbitrator, before this court.