Sr. No.28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No.33/2025 M/s Navnirman Construction Co. …Petitioner(s)/Appellants. Through: Mr. Syed Mohtasim, Advocate. Vs. Union of India and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 22.08.2025 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The petitioner being a registered partnership firm, having participated in the bidding process and his bid having been accepted by the respondents vide letter no.81178/02/E8 dated May 18, 2021 for “Execution of Balance Well Sinking of Home Bank Side Abutment up to Original Design Level with Provision of Upwards & Downwards Revision therein including Bottom Plugging, Well Cap, casting of Abutment, Abutment Cap and SSI of 85 MTR Span Khalsar Bride over Shyok River at KM 6.500 on Khalsar-Sasoma Road under 54 RCC/16 BRTF under Project Vijayak in Leh-Ladakh(UT)” a contract, under No. CE (P) Vijayak/05/2021-22, came to be entered between the parties. Disputes are alleged to have arisen between the parties regarding the scope of work, particularly with regard to Item No. 1.02 of Schedule „A‟ which is “Sinking of existing Well”. The further dispute, alleged to have arisen, is with regard to the damage to curbs and well steining (well foundations), which the petitioner claimed was pre-existing, but the respondents shifted the blame on the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner invoked condition 70 of the General Conditions of Contracts (IAFW-2249), by issuing notice dated 25.02.2025, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The respondents, vide their communication dated 28.03.2025, rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the request for appointment of an arbitrator was conditional. Owing to rejection of request of the petitioner, he has been constrained to approach this Court in terms of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Hence, this petition. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents had caused appearance and filed their response. In brief what is sought to be urged is that the approval was granted in the year 2010 for construction of 85 meter span permanent bridge over River Shyok on Khalsar-Sasoma Road at a cost of Rs. 368.06 lakhs. During the course of execution, major technical variations arose and a revised estimate of Rs. 905.18 lakh was sanctioned in the year 2014 to cover the additional costs. For the balance work (well sinking and other related works), a new contract was awarded to the petitioner in the year 2021. It is stated that the petitioner, for various reasons, raised a claim for variation under Clause 7 of GCC (IAFW-2249) vide letter dated 17th February, 2025, which was reviewed and rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 24th February, 2025, as the same was not found to be in conformity with the terms and conditions of the contract agreement. Owing to the rejection of the said claim, the petitioner sought initiation of the arbitration proceedings under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by invoking Clause 70 of GCC (IAFW-2249), requesting for appointment of an arbitrator. It is submitted that the contractor has failed to exhaust the contractually mandated dispute resolution mechanism including the conciliation process prescribed under Clause 47.1.1.1(C) of the Special Conditions of the Contract before approaching this Court by the medium of petition at hand. As such, it is submitted that the petition at hand is legally unsustainable and liable to be dismissed. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner had failed to submit the requisite waiver under Section 12(5), read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, being a mandatory requirement when a party seeks appointment of a departmental arbitrator. It is further alleged that the petitioner contractor has failed to fulfil the contractual obligations and delayed the execution of the work by raising baseless and extraneous queries. And it has, accordingly, been prayed that petition be dismissed. 4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 25.02.2025 is not disputed. 5. Although, as indicated earlier, the respondents have filed objections to the petition but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents pleads no objection in case the petition is allowed. 6. In the given facts and circumstances, coupled with statement made at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondents, the application is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey (Retd. Chief Justice, High Court of J&K) is appointed as the sole arbitrator. Who shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act to make an award within the time provided in the Act itself after charging the prescribed fee along with incidental expenses to be shared by the parties. 7. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 22.08.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.08.2025 18:13