( 2025:HHC:34664 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.166 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 10.10.2025 Rajneesh Katna ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator regarding the non-release of the due payment against the work executed as per the award letter. 2. The dispute is stated to have arisen on account of the award dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure R-I) and the work was awarded vide letter dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure P-3) which pertains for Site Develoment for C/o Mukhya Mantri Lok Bhawan Basal & Rinhu (Anhech), Dev. Block Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 3. The initial notice was served upon the respondents on 14.05.2024 (Annexure A-I), wherein the demand was made 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 for the payments as such and for release of the witheld security etc., apart from the claim on account of wages @ 15000/- per month paid to the chowkidar/caretaker (engaged since January 2023) who was forced to be engaged to protect the property due to non taking over of the Bhawan by the State. 4. Apparently, the first petition was filed bearing Arb. Case No.730 of 2024 titled Rajneesh Kanta Vs. State of H.P. & Another which was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.2024 with liberty to file afresh. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of the defect in the notice as such, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn and led to filing of fresh and prior to that the appropirate notice dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) had been duly served upon the respondents, wherein the amount was quantified to Rs.15,98,715/- apart from the other claims as mentioed above, including the non-payment of the wages of the cowkidar/caretaker. 6. The stand as such of the respondents is that the running bills were released from the year 2019 to 2021 and it has been admitted that the work was awarded for a sum of Rs.26,60,484/- but denied that the additional work was awarded. The claimant had not finally handed over the building and thus 3 the remaining amount has been witheld including the security deposit. The security of the site is also stated to be not the resonsibility of the respondents. 7. As per Clause 45 of the Contract, the security amount had only to be released within six months after the formal completion and handing over of the building and therefore, the application has been opposed. In the rejoinder (sic replication), it has been brought to the notice of the Court that neither the tender was closed nor the penalty was imposed etc., and extra work was not executed. 8. The communication dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure P- 6) has also been appended that the respondents have approached the petitioner during the pendency of the litigation for settlement. A perusal of the same would go on to show that subject to the decision of the present arbitration proceedings, a meeting was also directed to be held inter se the parties by the Executive Engineer. 9. It is thus apparent that the building as such has been constructed and the issue was also regarding the possession. This Court, is thus very concerned about the non- utilization of the public property and resultantly is constrained to pass an order that at least the respondents should take 4 possession of the building immediately, so that, the additional expenditure is not drawn as such from the public excehequer. Apart from that, since the parties have already agreed by way of arbitration clause that disputes shall be referred to the Arbitrator, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the matter would be resolved by way of appointing an Arbitraror. 10. Resultantly, the application is allowed and Ms. Srishti Verma, Advocate of this Court present in Court is appointed as an Arbitrator (Mobile No.9418690009) 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. 11. On her giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Ms. Srishti Verma, Advocate shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. 12. 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. 5 13. Accordingly, the application is disposed off alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 10th October, 2025 (munish thakur/sanjeev)