2025:HHC:34633 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CARBC No.35 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 ___________________________________________________________________ M/s DSK Construction Private Limited …….Petitioner Versus Executive Engineer, Salooni Division ….Respondent ___________________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Through instant petition/objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, ‘the Act’), challenge has been laid to order dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Arbitrator, thereby terminating the arbitration proceedings under Clause 32(2)(c) of the Act and Clause 25.2 of the Agreement. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner/objector, as has been highlighted in the petition/objections and further canvassed by Ms. Shalini Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner/objector, is that learned Arbitrator, while passing the impugned order, failed to take note of the fact that immediately after passing of order dated 05.02.2021 passed by Sole Dispute Review 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:34633 2 Expert (for short, ‘DRE’), petitioner/objector herein had submitted communication dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure P-4), thereby requesting Chief Engineer (KZ), HPPWD, Dharamshala, to appoint Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute inter se parties and pursuant to afore request made at the behest of petitioner/objector, Chief Engineert (KZ), HPPWD, Dharamshala, appointed Mr. Kulbir Singh Thakur, Arbitrator, to adjudicate the dispute inter se parties. While referring to impugned order dated 19.05.2023, Ms. Shalini Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner/objector, submitted that order, if any, passed by the DRE could have been laid challenge within a period of 28 days from the date of passing of the order, however, in the instant case, within three days of passing of afore order, petitioner/objector sent communication to authority concerned for appointment of Arbitrator. She submitted that since petitioner/objector was not satisfied with the decision rendered by DRE, he had no alternative remedy, but to approach the Department with the request to appoint Arbitrator, which request of him was accepted while referring the dispute for arbitration, who is otherwise responsible for passing the impugned order. 3. Having regard to the nature of dispute and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondent-State, who is otherwise represented by Ms. Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General. Ms. Negi, while 2025:HHC:34633 3 justifying the impugned order dated 19.05.2023, attempted to argue that once no specific averment, if any, ever came to be made in the claim petition filed at the behest of petitioner with regard to proceedings decided by the DRE as well as communication dated 08.02.2021, whereby prayer came to be made on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Arbitrator while passing the impugned order, thereby terminating the arbitration proceedings. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court is persuaded to agree with Ms. Shalini Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that same is not based upon proper appreciation of pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties. 5. Though having carefully perused claim petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Arbitrator, this Court is persuaded to agree with Ms. Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, that no specific averment, if any, ever came to be made at the behest of petitioner with regard to proceedings, if any, taken out by DRE as well as communication dated 08.02.2021, whereby petitioner requested for appointment of Arbitrator, however, having carefully perused order dated 15.02.2021 issued under the 2025:HHC:34633 4 signatures of Chief Engineer, Dharamshala, whereby Mr. Kulbir Singh Thakur came to be appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute inter se parties, this Court is persuaded to agree with Ms. Shalini Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that once factum with regard to issuance of letter dated 08.02.2021 at the behest of petitioner, praying therein for appointment of Arbitrator was in the knowledge of learned Arbitrator, there was no occasion, if any, for him to pass the impugned order, that too by taking hypertechnical view. 6. It is only after failure of proceedings, if any, before the DRE, parties resort to arbitration proceedings, if any and as such, it is not necessarily required for parties seeking arbitration to specifically state in the claim statement that prior to his/her approaching the learned Arbitrator, he had resorted to proceedings before the DRE in terms of Clause 25.2 of the agreement executed inter se parties. Since within three days of passing of order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the DRE, petitioner/objector herein vide order dated 08.02.2021 had requested for appointment of arbitrator and pursuant to his such request, authority responsible for passing the impugned order was appointed Arbitrator, there was no occasion, if any, for afore authority to pass impugned order dated 20.05.2023, which is totally contrary to the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record. 2025:HHC:34633 5 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the learned Arbitrator is quashed and set aside with the direction to Chief Engineer (KZ), Dharamshala, to appoint new Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute inter se parties expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Needless to say, afore authority, while complying with the instant order passed by this Court, shall take note of Section 12 Schedule Seven of the Act, which clearly provides that no person having any kind of interest in Department shall be appointed as Arbitrator. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 18, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)