[2025:RJ-JP:38384] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 91/2024 M/s Chetak Mitra Tollways Private Limited, Through Its Authorised Representative/director Mr. Ajeet Kumar Jain Having Registered Office At 84, Krishna Nagar, Shekhawat Marg, Sirsi Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021, Also At He-10, Hanuman Nagar Ext. Vishnu Marg, Sirsi Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302012. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Finance Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Law Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. The Chief Engineer And Additional Secretary, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 5. The Chief Engineer(Roads), Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/09/2025 1. By way of filing this arbitration application following prayer has been made: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this arbitration application and appoint an Arbitrator/arbitration tribunal so as to conduct the arbitration proceedings between [2025:RJ-JP:38384] (2 of 5) [ARBAP-91/2024] both the parties or appoint suitable mutually acceptable Arbitrator to conduct the entire arbitration proceedings between the parties in terms of Clause 15.2 of Concession Agreement dated 17.01.2012. Pass such order or any further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of present case.” 2. The instant arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act of 1996’) has been submitted for appointment of Arbitrator to settle the dispute arisen between the parties. 3. Counsel submits that an agreement was entered between the parties with regard to certain work, but during currency of the said agreement, dispute has arisen between the parties, hence, in terms of Clause 15.1(a), the petitioner approached the Steering Committee and Steering Committee has taken a decision in favour of the petitioner on 18.09.2023 against which the respondents approached the Standing Committee. Counsel submits that as per the mandate contained under Clause 15.1, in case the dispute is not resolved by the Standing Committee within a period of six months, then under such circumstances, the matter is required to be referred to the Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Clause 15.2. Counsel submits that the matter remained pending before the Standing Committee for more than six months and the same was not decided within the intervening period, but at a later stage i.e. on 23.05.2024, the Standing Committee has again remitted the matter to the Steering Committee. Counsel submits that no fruitful object would be gained in such remission of the matter, hence in [2025:RJ-JP:38384] (3 of 5) [ARBAP-91/2024] terms of the mandate contained under Clause 15.2, the matter is required to be referred to the Arbitrator for settlement of dispute between the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that once a decision has been taken by the Standing Committee for remitting the matter to the Steering Committee, there is no occasion available with the petitioner to make a prayer for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator, hence, the instant arbitration application is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the Steering Committee has already taken view in favour of the petitioner by passing an order dated 18.09.2023, against which the respondents approached the Standing Committee, where the matter remained pending for more than six months and finally the order was passed on 23.05.2024 by referring the matter again to the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee has already taken a favourable view in favour of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, no fruitful object would be gained in case, the order passed by the Standing Committee is retained as it is. Since the dispute has not been resolved between the parties, hence, in terms of Clause 15.2, this Court deems it just and proper to allow this arbitration application. [2025:RJ-JP:38384] (4 of 5) [ARBAP-91/2024] 7. Accordingly, the instant arbitration application stands allowed. 8. In terms of Clause 15.2 of the agreement, the Department of Public Works, Government of Rajasthan is directed to appoint the Additional Chief Secretary (Retd.) to the Government of Rajasthan, as arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 9. The arbitration fee of the Sole Arbitrator shall be payable in accordance with the provisions contained in the Manual of Procedure of Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2009 as amended by the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Amendment), 2017 vide notification dated 23.03.2017 read with 4th schedule appended to the Act of 1996 or as determined by the Arbitrator with consensus of parties. 10. All issues raised by the parties before the Arbitrator shall be considered in accordance with law. 11. Since as per Section 29A of the Act of 1996, the arbitration proceedings are required to be concluded within the scheduled time as stipulated therein, it is expected from the parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 08.10.2025 or on any other date as informed by the Arbitrator subject to the agreement between the parties. Furthermore, the parties shall provide their respective E-mail/ contact number/ mobile number and/or also of their authorized representatives/ Lawyers appearing on their behalf before the Arbitration Tribunal, in order to facilitate the Arbitrator to send information/communication to the parties, whenever required. The information send by the Arbitrator, on such address/ E- [2025:RJ-JP:38384] (5 of 5) [ARBAP-91/2024] mail/ cellphone of the parties or to their authorized representatives/ Lawyers, shall be treated as sufficient communication unless same is not changed. 9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/157