HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court Case: Arb P No. 99/2024 Zaffer Iqbal …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Mohd. Salik, Advocate. V/s UT of J&K and ors. …. Respondent(s) Through: Ms.Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER 19.12.2025 01. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short ‘the Act’) seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator. 02. The petitioner, being a seasoned A-class government contractor, registered with the J&K Public Works Department since August 10, 1996 under Registration No. 204/A/CE/KCC/PDC of 1996-97 participated in the online bidding process initiated by the respondents through e-NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) No. 327 of 2022-23 in the form of a Standard Bidding Document (SBD) containing multiple appendices and annexures. The bid was published by Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, Jammu under Notification No. PHEJ/JJM/20856-867 on February 22, 2023 inviting bids for execution of works involving the design, construction, testing, and commissioning of various Overhead Tanks (OHTs) along with allied works in the rural division of Jammu under the Jal Jeewan Mission, contingent upon site-specific Safe Bearing Capacity (SBC), staging height, and storage capacity parameters. The petitioner being the lowest bidder for nine Water Supply Schemes was awarded the works comprising these water supply schemes vide letter dated May 26, 2023 bearing No. SE/HYD/1400-03. The Agreement No. PHER/28 of 2023-24 was executed between the parties and the petitioner mobilized manpower, machinery, and resources to commence the allotted work. However, the respondents failed to Sr. No. 5 Arb P No. 99/2024 provide Safe Bearing Capacity (SBC) being prerequisite for preparing site- specific structural designs which was conveyed to the respondents vide letter dated June 20, 2023. Besides, the petitioner’s efforts and verbal requests, no substantive action was taken by the respondents instead an alternative locations was provided to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner prepared the required designs/drawings, approved by respondent No. 4 but the approval was withheld by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 further delaying the matter and in between the stipulated contract period elapsed. Petitioner vide letter dated January 17, 2024 highlighted the discrepancies and sought the resolution thereof but the same remained unanswered. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 acting under the authorization of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through his letter dated May 01, 2024 unilaterally cancelled six out of nine works allotted to the petitioner. 03. It is submitted that the petitioner sought interim measures under Section 9 of the Act by filing a petition before the Principal District Judge, Jammu on May 24, 2024, wherein interim relief, by staying the forfeiture of the performance security and the debarment order, was granted. During the pendency of said suit, respondent No. 4 on July 22, 2024 issued two e-NIT’s bearing Nos. 14 and 15 of 2024-25 for retendering the cancelled works. Being aggrieved, the petitioner on September 26, 2024 by way of a legal notice under Section 21 of the Act called upon the respondents to appoint an arbitrator. The respondents neither responded to the notice nor taken any steps to appoint any arbitrator within the stipulated period. However, the respondents have failed to respond the same, leaving the petitioner with no option but to approach this Court by filing the petition at hand. 04. The records show that on April 25, 2025, Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG had appeared on behalf of respondents and was granted time to file objections. However, no response has been filed by the respondents. 05. Thus, in the given circumstances and having argued the matter at some length she, 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 respondent be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas/ objections before the arbitral tribunal/ arbitrator in this regard. Arb P No. 99/2024 6. In the given facts and circumstances, coupled with statement made at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondents, the petition, in so far as appointment of arbitrator in terms of Section 11 of the Act is allowed. Accordingly, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Deepak Sethi, Retired Principal District Judge, (Mobile No. 9419406535) 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. 7. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 19.12.2025 Sunita/Secy. SUNITA KOUL 2025.12.24 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document