IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CARBC No. 19 of 2025 Date of Decision: 1.4.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Maan Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner has made following prayers: “a. Directing the respondents, preservation of the site of work and the construction material stacked at site which is subject matter of the arbitration agreement. b. Directing the respondents to measure the work executed till date by the petitioner at the site of work and further directing the respondents to deposit with the registry of this Hon’ble Court and secure the amount payable on account of work executed and also, for the construction material stacked at site. c.Directing the respondents to undertake joint measurement/inspection of the site to determine the amount - 2 - payable ton account of the work executed and the construction material stacked at site. d. Directing the stay of re-tendering process initiated vide Annexure P-13. e. Quash and set aside the re-tendering process initiated vide Annexure P-13 being illegal without cancelling the tender allotted to the present petitioner vide Annexure P-1 and further directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue and complete the work. f. Any further relief, which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit under Section 9 (e) of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted/passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that parties to lis entered into arbitration agreement for the work of “Construction of Primary health Centre Building at Saichu (Sh:- Building Portion along with water supply and sanitary installations of rain water harvesting etc”. Vide afore agreement, parties agreed to refer all disputes arising out of or pertaining to the contract agreement for adjudication through arbitration. Vide award letter dated 19.5.2014, afore work was awarded to the petitioner for a price of Rs. 52,22,121/- . Time stipulation for completion of work was one year to be reckoned from 15 days after the date of issuance of award letter (Annexure P-1). Though petitioner claims to have started the work well within time, but since progress on the spot was not as per agreed terms, dispute arose inter-se parties. Respondents without cancelling - 3 - the contract awarded in favour of the petitioner proceeded to re- advertise the work. Since work in question came to be awarded to third party without measuring the work already done by the petitioner on the spot, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for reliefs as reproduced herein above. 2. Alongwith aforesaid petition, petitioner also filed OMP No. 452 of 2023, praying therein for appointment of Local Commissioner in terms of Section 9 (2) of the Act, for measurement of the work already done by the petitioner. This Court having taken note of the averments contained in the application as well as documents annexed therewith, passed order dated 29.9.2023, thereby appointing Local Commissioner with a direction to visit the spot and measure the work. 3. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court, Local Commissioner submitted her report. As per report of Local Commissioner, work found to have been completed on spot by the petitioner was to the tune of Rs. 29,74,422/-. Though by way of filing objections to the Local Commissioner report, respondents have disputed the aforesaid amount, but since it is not in dispute that after filing of the case at hand, petitioner also filed petition under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of the Arbitrator and the Hon’ble Chief Justice vide order dated 30.12.2023, appointed Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute inter-se parties, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. Since Section 9 (II) (b) - 4 - provides for interim measure of protection in respect of any of the matters as detailed in clause (9) (II) (a) to (e) and this court vide order dated 29.9.2023, appointed the Local Commissioner to assess the work done by the petitioner, prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to issue direction to the respondents to deposit the assessed amount in the Registry of this Court pending arbitration proceedings before the learned Arbitrator, deserves to be accepted. 4. Having perused report submitted by the Local Commissioner, this court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General that no work has been done on the spot by the petitioner. Otherwise also, this Court cannot go into the aforesaid dispute in the instant proceedings, rather same shall be decided by the learned Arbitrator in appropriate proceedings. Amount deposited in terms of instant order shall only be released after award, if any, is passed by the learned Arbitrator in that regard. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to deposit sum of Rs. 29,74,422/-, as quantified by the Local Commissioner with the Registry of this Court within four weeks, however same shall not be released without leave of the court. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 1, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge - 5 -