1 2025:CGHC:15286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 15 of 2024 Gilcon Project Service Limited J V Scapes Associates Having Its OfÏce At A-35, Manipuram Colony Char Imli Bhopal-462016 --- Applicant versus 1. Chief Executive OfÏcer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Engineer Mukhya Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna Member Old Zila Panchayat Building Collectorate Parisar Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Superintending Engineer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran Pariyojana Mandal-1 Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) 4. Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development Government of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ARBR No. 14 of 2024 Gilcon Project Service Limited J.V. Scapes Associates, Having Its Administrative OfÏce At A-35, Manipuram, Colony, Char Imli, Bhopal - 462016. ---Applicant Versus 1. Chief Executive OfÏcer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency Vikas Bhawan Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Engineer Mukhya Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (Member) Old Zila Panchayat Building, Collectorate Parisar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Superintending Engineer Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran Pariyojana Mandal 1 Jagdalpur (District Bastar) (C.G.). PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 4. Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development Government of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Raipur, Chhattisharh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 to 4/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.04.2025 1. These are the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. Since both the petitions i.e. ARBR No. 15 of 2024 and ARBR No. 14 of 2024 involve common facts and issues, they are being considered and decided together. ARBR No. 15 of 2024 is taken as the lead case. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the Gilcon Project Service Limited J.V. Scapes Associates, the applicant is a Joint Venture entered for providing the consultancy services for construction, supervision and quality control for construction of roads under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna and Mukhya Mantri Gram Sadak Evam Vikas Yojana in the State of Chhattisgarh. The respondent No.1 is an agency for implementation of Mukhya Mantri Gram Sadak Evam Vikas Yojana in Chhattisgarh State and respondent agency being registered under the Societies Act. The agency is headed by the Chief Executive OfÏcer. Projects are being executed by the contractors and are supervised by the consultants. The respondent invited "Expression of Interest" (PIC-01) and (PIC-02) for engagement of Project Implementation Consultant for Supervision and Quality Control of rural road including Waiting Hall, Toilet, Hand Pump and Gali C.C. Road proposed under "Mukyamantri Gram 3 Sadak Evam Vikas Yojana". The applicant submitted its tender and after considering the same and after negotiations and submission of the performance security and signing of agreement No. 01/MMGSEVY/CGRRDA and 02/MMGSEVY/CGRRDA on 11-09-2013, work orders dated 30-09-2013 was issued by the respondent and applicant was asked to proceed ahead with the Supervision and Quality Control of work under "Mukyamantri Gram Sadak Evan Vikas Yojana" in District Kanker, Kondagaon and Narayanpur as well as District Bastar, Dantewada, Sukma and Bijapur. There was constant silence of the respondent department with regard to the request of the applicant to pay consultancy fees from time to time during the continuance of the contract. As the respondent department maintained its golden silence with regard to the consultancy fee, applicant was left with no other option but to invoke dispute resolution clause being clause 10.1 and 10.2 of the Contract and whereby the applicant on 12/01/2017 represented to the Executive Engineer of the concerned area for settlement of dispute and differences as per clause 10.1 and 10.2 of the contract. The same was also not considered as per terms of the Contract and the applicant was constrained to prefer appeal before the Dispute Redressal Committee on 20/02/2017 and as the same has also not been considered the statement of claim was presented before the Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) bonafidely as per the terms of the contract. 4. Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the settlement of dispute clause of the agreement, Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal, Raipur constituted under the Chhattisgarh Madhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam 1983 was the institution designated for arbitrability of the disputes and differences between the parties. Vide order dated 08/09/2022, Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal, Raipur has held that the 4 Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute and differences between the parties and as the designated Institution holds that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute and as the Arbitration clause and arbitrarily of dispute and differences between the parties still exists, applicant presented an application under section 11(5) before the respondent No.4 under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for appointment of arbitrator within thirty days on 12/12/2022 but the same has also not been considered and thus the application under Section 11(6) for appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was filed before the Hon'ble Court which was registered as ARBR No. 12 of 2024. Hon'ble Court while hearing the aforesaid arbitration request matter on 26/02/2024 observed that request for appointment of arbitrator was made to respondent No.4 but not to the respondent No.1 and the Hon'ble Court, considering the same, was pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner to present an application before the respondent No.1, Chief Executive OfÏcer-Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, and the applicant on the basis of the aforesaid order again made representation for appointment of sole arbitrator to the respondents with a copy to the respondent No.4 but the same has also not been considered and thus the present application under section 11(6) for appointment of an independent and impartial Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. No Arbitrator has so far been appointed, despite the request made by the applicant vide its letter/notice dated 01/03/2024 served in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act") and as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Court on 26/02/2024 as enumerated hereinafter. Thus the present application for appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 5 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that there is no arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties and in absence of arbitration clause, these petitions are not maintainable. 6. In response, Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the State/respondents No. 2 to 4 are not a party to the dispute and the dispute is between the applicant and the respondent No. 1 who, despite service of notice, has chosen not to appear before this Court to either make any submission or to oppose the arbitration application. 7. Vide order dated 25.06.2024, this Court had directed for issuance of notice to the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The matter was thereafter listed on 04.11.2024 wherein learned counsel for the applicant was directed to file rejoinder to the return filed by the respondent/State. On 09.12.2024 it was found that as per ofÏce report dated 24.10.2024, though notices were issued to the respondent No. 1 to 4, but none had appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to contest the matter. On 06.01.2025, on the request of the learned counsel for the State, two week’s was granted to comply with the order dated 09.12.2024, passed by this Court. Thereafter, on 27.01.2025 in compliance of the order dated 09.12.2024 and 06.01.2025, the learned State counsel has informed the respondent No. 1 about the pendency of the present arbitration applications, but none had appeared nor was any representation made on behalf of the respondent No. 1, therefore, as last opportunity, the applicant was permitted to serve notice to the respondent No. 1 through paper publication in any leading newspapers which had large circulation over the places of State of Chhattisgarh. Today, when the matter is taken up, none appears nor is any representation made of behalf of the respondent No. 1. 8. An afÏdavit has been filed by the applicant annexing therewith copy of 6 paper publication of the notice and from perusal of the same, it is evident that paper publication has been made in two leading newspapers namely Dainik Bhaskar and Central Chronical having wide circulation over the State of Chhattisgarh, thus, it is presumed that service of notice on respondent No. 1 is complete. Despite having been served, the respondent No. 1 has not appeared nor is there any opposition to the arbitration request, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint any retired District Judge as Arbitrator. 9. A query was put to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as to learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 4, as to who may be appointed as Arbitrator for resolving the dispute existing between the parties, Mr. Ankit Pandey submits that Mr. Ganpat Rao, who is a retired District Judge may be appointed as Arbitrator. 10. In view of the above facts situation of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Mr. Ganpat Rao, a retired District Judge to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 11. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Mr. Ganpat Rao in the proper address. 12. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 13. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti