CHIMAN LAL MIDDHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 23.1.2004 passed by the District Judge, Bikaner, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the respondents herein praying for change of the arbitrator has been allowed and accordingly earlier order appointing arbitrator with the consent of the parties, has been cancelled.

(2.) The background facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was awarded the work of "cement concrete lining earth work excavation, Baramsar minor Kms. 3.0 to 4/500" by the Executive Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana (IGNP), Taranagar, Churu, the respondent No. 3 herein. Accordingly, an agreement No. 4 of 1991-92 was executed between the petitioner and the State of Rajasthan. As per the work order dated 7.5.1991, the construction work was to commence on 21.5.91 and was required to be completed latest by 21.11.91. The petitioner completed the work on 15.1.1994 and submitted the final bills for sum of Rs. 18,80,709/- vide letter dated 11.8.95. However, despite reminders, the department concerned failed to make payment. In these circumstances, the petitioner served a notice dated 20.11.95 upon the Chief Engineer, IGNP, Bikaner in terms of clause 23 of the agreement for referring the dispute to arbitration. The respondents failed to make appointment of the arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute, therefore, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act' hereinafter) before the authority designated by the Chief Justice i.e. the District Judge, Bikaner, for appointment of arbitrator. The application was allowed by the District Judge, Bikaner vide order dated 1.12.98 and both the parties were directed to submit panel of the names for appointment of the arbitrator. Thereafter, vide order dated 2.2.99, with the consent of both the parties, Shri Jagjit Singh, retired Additional Chief Engineer,IGNP, was appointed as arbitrator.

(3.) The arbitrator entered into reference, the petitioner submitted his claim, both the parties led their evidence and submitted their written arguments. However, before the oral argument could be advanced and the dispute could be decided by the arbitrator, the respondents submitted an application before the arbitrator to make appropriate recommendation to the authority designate to change the arbitrator, on the ground that the work contract subject matter of dispute between the parties was awarded in favour of the petitioner herein on his recommendation therefore, the propriety of the award to be given by him as arbitrator may be questioned on this count. While the application preferred as aforesaid was pending consideration before the arbitrator, the respondents preferred an application before the authority designate for revocation of order appointing arbitrator and to appoint impartial arbitrator, on the ground that Shri Jagjit Singh, who has been appointed as arbitrator has been cited as one of the witnesses by the respondents in the list of witnesses produced in the arbitration proceedings.