Sr. No.14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No.19/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 Ashok Kumar …Petitioner(s)/Appellants. Through: Mr. Ankush Manhas, Advocate. Vs. UT of J and K through Commr/Secy ….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The petitioner having been declared as a successful bidder for the execution of work “Construction of Depupty Director ISM Office at Paloura, Jammu” pursuant to e-NIT No. MCD-80 of 2017-18 dated 20.02.2018, was issued an allotment order No. SEJ/935-37 dated 14.05.2018 by respondent no.3. The petitioner commenced the preparatory works, however, faced certain obstructions on the site on account of the objections raised by the local residents which prevented the execution of the works smoothly. The precise grievance as set out in the petition is that failure on part of the respondents to hand over the construction site free from all hurdles, the petitioner has suffered financial losses including but not limited to mobilization costs, loss of opportunity and de-mobilization costs. It is stated that the petitioner has been doing the allotted work to the complete satisfaction of the respondents since 2018, however, the work done has not been inspected/recorded regularly by the site Engineer. Thus, the petitioner is stated to have endured financial hardships and continues to suffer losses. Accordingly, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 23.11.2024 calling upon the respondents to indemnify the losses suffered by him due to inability of the respondent-department to handover the site free from all hurdles as also calling upon the respondents to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 18 of the terms and conditions of the work order but all in vain. Hence, this petition. 04. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents though caused appearance but no reply/ response has been filed on their behalf. 05. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide letter dated 23.11.2024 is not disputed. 06. Thus, in the given circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents, as always, fairly submits that let an arbitrator be appointed. But since the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner is vehemently disputed/ denied, it is submitted that respondents be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas/ objections before the arbitral tribunal/ arbitrator in this regard. 07. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Former Judge High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, is appointed as the sole arbitrator. Who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. And to 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. The respondents are at liberty to raise all the objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator. 08. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 31.10.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.11.2025 12:13