( 2025:HHC:34794 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.236 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 10.10.2025 Narain Dass Naik ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Negi, 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 the Arbitrator, as per the notice sent on 01.02.2025 for initiating the arbitration proceedings. The work was awarded to the petitioner on 13.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.1,23,05,300/-. 2. Reference had been made to Clause 25 of the agreement between the parties, which envisaged the Chief Engineer as the part of the appointment of the Arbitrator. 3. Resultantly, on 04.05.2025, the respondents-Chief Engineer, Mandi Zone, HPPWD, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh asked the petitioner to submit a panel of three Arbitrators for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 appointment of an Arbitrator and the needful was done on 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-6) and one Er. Ashok Chauhan (Retd. Engineer-in-Chief) was nominated by the petitioner alongwith two other Officers. 4. On 01.08.2025, the following order was passed by this Court on filing the petition:- “Inter alia reference is made to the notice dated 01.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) for appointment of neutral Arbitrator. It is also pointed out that a request is made to submnit a panel of three arbitrators on 04.05.2025 (Annexure P-5). In pursuance to the same, the petitoiner has finalized three names on 14.05.2025 (Anneuxre P-6). Learned counsel for the State prays for time to seek instructions. List on 05.09.2025 as to why such persons be not appointed.”’ 5. Counsel for the respondents-State submits that the necessary instructions has been received from the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Gohar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and Er. Ashok Chauhan (Retd. Engineer-in-Chief) could be proposed an Arbitrator. 6. Counsel for the respondents-State has also placed on record copies of orders dated 08.09.2025 and 22.09.2025, whereby the name of Er. Ashok Chauhan (Retd. Engineer-in- Chief) has been agreed to be the Arbitrator in question and the State has given its consent and necessary approval. 3 7. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is diposed off by giving the mandate to the said Officer to arbitrate the dispute in question between the parties which pertains to the work of “Construction of Rest House near Dhanotu Chowk in Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., 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. 8. On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Er. Ashok Chauhan (Retd. Engineer-in-Chief) shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) 10th October, 2025 Chief Justice (munish thakur/sanjeev)