1 2025:HHC:21388 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Arb. Case No.769 of 20 24 Decided on: 04.07.2025 Kalyan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Prem Chand Verma and Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present application has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the context of the tender work awarded on 30.10.2004 which was for a sum of Rs.28,09,326/- after negotiations and was for the purpose of addition & alteration to the PWD Rest House at Pooh in District Kinnaur, H.P. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Arbitration Clause 25 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contract. The requisite notice has been served on 27.06.2024 (Annexure P-3), raising the dispute as such and seeking the payments and the appointment of the Arbitrator. Resultantly, the petition has been filed. 3. The State has taken a stand that the work was to be completed by 14.11.2005 but was completed only in June 2010 and the final bill amounting to Rs.1,49,875/- was to be paid and the security amount was also to be refunded. However, the petitioner has remained sleeping over the matter and, therefore, plea of limitation of 14 years’ delay has been raised. However, in paragraph 12, it is admitted that an amount of Rs.1,34,372/- which was a security deposit for the work has been deducted in the 6th and the final bill and the said bill is under process and has not been paid so far as the final deviation statement is yet to be approved by the competent authority. It has also been averred that the security amount would be released in favour of the claimant contractor on receipt of adequate funds under the appropriate scheme of the Government. 3 4. Keeping in view the above, apparently, certain civil rights of the petitioner appear to be affected on account of the inaction of the State as well. In such circumstances, the plea taken of limitation for the appointment could not stand in the way of this Court. 5. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that since the parties have agreed amongst themselves for the matter to be settled by way of arbitration, the present petition is allowed and accordingly Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate, (Mob. No.9817171474) HIM No.212 of 2005, resident of Cedar Apartment, Chakkar, Shimla, 171005, who is present in the Court is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, after her disclosure in writing is obtained in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act and only after receipt thereof, her appointment, as an Arbitrator, shall come into force. 6. On her giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate, shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. 4 7. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties and also be furnished to the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator so appointed shall be entitled to fee as per stipulation contained in 4th Schedule appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. July 04, 2025 ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) (ankit) Chief Justice