S K TEKRIWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner has prayed for appointment of Arbitrator for settlement of dispute and claim of the petitioner for the work undertaken in the District of Godda for construction of rural road including bridge and culverts etc.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that after completion of the formalities as required under the advertisement, a contract agreement was executed and signed on 19-3-1997 between the parties for the construction of rural road including bridge and culverts in Boarijore Block of Godda. After execution of the agreement petitioner said to have utilized all adequate resources as such manpower, plant and equipment and necessary infrastructure to ensure that the work was continued in full swing so as to complete the entire work within the fixed time. It is contended that the sites of the work were handed over to the petitioner on 12-5-1997 and the work was commenced on 24-5-1997. However, the work was badly obstructed to the reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Clause 34 of the award of the contract speaks about the appointment of adjudicator. Petitioner's case is that claim was made on 18-5-2002 before the retired Engineer- in-Chief, Technical Vigilance Cell, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar but nothing was done. Petitioner alleged to have requested the respondent for appointment of Committee of Arbitrator in matter of disputes arising out of contract package No. 49, construction of rural road including bridge and culverts by sending representation dated 29-10-2002. Petitioner said to have again made representation on 31-3- 2003 and 4-8-2004 but all in vein. Hence, this application.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating inter alia that application under Section 11 (6) of the Act is wholly misconceived and is not maintainable. It is stated that terms of agreement does not sanction appointment of Arbitrator rather according to the agreement, matter can at best be referred to the adjudicator. Respondent's further case is that the instant application is hopelessly barred by limitation and even the matter cannot now be referred to the adjudicator. Respondents' case is that petitioner did not complete the work within 24 months from handing over the site. The date of completion of work was 23-5-99. Respondents' further case is that petitioner for the first time made his claim on 18-5-2002 when the project was closed as far back as in June, 2000.