IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.194 of 2025 Decided on: 22.05.2026 Vinod Gazta .…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The petitioner has sought the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on account of the dispute arising out of construction of the Government Senior Secondary School Building at Margo, Tehsil Chopal, District 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (2026:HHC:20064 ) Shimla, H.P., vide letter of Award dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-2), for an amount of Rs. 1,09,42,533/-. As per Clause-25 of the Arbitration Agreement inter se parties, notice dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) was issued for invoking the arbitration proceedings. The respondents proposed three names of Arbitrators for adjudication of the disputes involving an amount of approximately Rs. 30 lacs. 2. The stand taken by the respondents is that the Executive Engineer, Chopal Division, HPPWD, Chopal, had intimated, vide communication dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) that in the proceedings circulated on 27.07.2024, in consequence to the meeting held in the office of the Superintending Engineer, 4th Circle, HPPWD, Winter Field, Shimla, it had been decided that no further hearing would be granted as the contractor had agreed to the same. 3. Perusal of the minutes of the meeting dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure-5) would go on to show that only Rs. 88.60 lacs had been received, whereas the work 3 (2026:HHC:20064 ) amounting to Rs.102.30 lacs had already been executed by the contractor. It was further noticed that sufficient funds had not been released by the Education Department and in such circumstances, the balance work of the school was decided to be closed so as to avoid future financial burden upon the Government on account of escalation and arbitration claims. Thus, it is apparent that the rights of the petitioner have been foreclosed by the State. 4. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter has to be resolved by way of arbitration between the parties, as agreed. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Shri Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate, who is present in Court, is appointed as Arbitrator, to resolve the dispute between the parties. After his disclosure in writing is obtained in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act, and only after receipt thereof, his appointment as an Arbitrator, shall come into force. 4 (2026:HHC:20064 ) 6. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Shri Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate, Mobile No. 94180-24572, shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award, in accordance with law. 7. Copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Counsel for the parties as also 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. 8. The present petition is, disposed of, accordingly alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 22nd May, 2026 (sushma)