1 | P a g e Serial No.8 Reg. CAUSE LIST HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through VC) OWP 609/2018 M/S R.K.GOEL ASSOCIATES …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manik Shardwaj, Advocate Vs. U.O.I.TH.BORDER ROAD ORG.AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) ORDER 17.07.2026 1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking removal of the respondent No. 4, who was appointed as the sole arbitrator by respondent No. 2 with respect to a dispute over laying (with mech paver) and compaction with TVRR of readymade Bituminous HMP MIX at site for premix carpet 2 CM thick with sand seal coat for resurfacing work between km 0.000 to km 14.800 on road Vijaypur - Ramgarh-SM Pur, and for appointment of an independent arbitrator in his place. 2. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is, is not maintainable. For the remedy for seeking to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator and 2 | P a g e appointment of a substitute arbitrator lies under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Faced with the aforesaid position, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for treating this petition as an application under Section 15 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the adoption of such a course. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the appointment of Colonel U.N. Singh (respondent No. 4) as the sole arbitrator by respondent No. 2 in terms of the communication dated 05.01.2017 was contrary to and in violation of the provisions of Section 12, Sub-section 5 of the Act. 5. Needless it to say that Sub-section 5 of Section 12 was inserted by Act 3 of 2016 with effect from October 23, 2015. That being the position. It is evident that on the date of appointment of respondent No. 4 as sole arbitrator i.e., January 5, 2017 Sub-section (5) of Section 12 was in operation. From reading of Sub-section 5 of Section 12, it clearly transpires that notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person who has a relationship with the parties, or the counsel, or the subject matter of the dispute is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. 6. Colonel U.N. Singh (respondent No. 4) was, at the relevant point of time, a serving Commander in 31 TF C/O 56 APO and, 3 | P a g e therefore, could not have been appointed in view of the clear provisions of Sub-section 5 of Section 12. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed, the mandate of Colonel U.N. Singh, appointed as sole arbitrator by respondent No. 2 vide communication dated January 5, 2017, is terminated and in his place, Er. Rajesh Gandora (Retd) Superintending Engineer R/o Shastri Nagar, Jammu is appointed as the sole arbitrator. 8. The arbitrator shall, thereafter, make an award within the time provided in the Act itself after charging the prescribed fee along with incidental expenses to be shared by the parties. (Sanjeev Kumar) Chief Justice (A) SRINAGAR: 17.07.2026 Aadil