1 2025:CGHC:39517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 26 of 2024 V. M. Techno Soft Private Limited, R/o G-3, Sector 1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Director Shri Praveen Malik, S/o Shri Sukram Pal Malik, Age About 50 Years. ... Applicant versus 1 - The Revenue Commissioner (Chairman) Divisional Monitoring Committee, Jagdalpur, Bastar Division, (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Deputy Advocate General as well as Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its power under Section 11(6) of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the Act, 1996 in view of the peculiar factual matrix of the case and appoint an Arbitrator or pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts, in brief, the applicant is an ISO 9001:2008 certified leading company based in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, engaged in waste management services, training and skill development, software development, GIS, M-CAD, and data processing, with operations extending beyond the State. Owing to the alarming state of improper disposal and serious mismanagement of biomedical waste in Chhattisgarh, the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 507/2014, vide judgment dated 15.12.2016, issued specific directions to the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (CECB) to improve the quality of existing Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facilities (CBWTFs) and to establish additional CBWTFs across the State. In compliance, CECB issued a Request for Proposal (Tender No. 03/2017-2018) dated 05.12.2017 for the selection of a CBWTF Service Provider for Bastar and Sarguja Divisions, under which the Service Provider was required to set up a CBWTF and undertake the collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal of biomedical waste from healthcare facilities. The Applicant duly participated, was declared the successful bidder, and was issued a Letter of Intent dated 29.06.2018, subsequently furnishing a performance guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 01.07.2018. Thereafter, a Master Service Agreement was executed on 04.07.2018 between the Applicant and the Commissioner, Bastar Division & Chairman, Division Monitoring 3 Committee, under which the Division Monitoring Committee undertook to provide suitable land, and the Applicant was to set up the CBWTF entirely at its own cost, with consideration fixed at Rs. 20/- per bed per day for 4,269 beds, payable only after commissioning of the facility. On 29.05.2019, land was allotted to the Applicant on a 30-year lease for this purpose. The Applicant mobilized men, machinery, and resources, and commenced construction in full earnest, achieving nearly 90% completion at considerable expense. However, the project faced relentless opposition from local villagers, including protests, rioting, and acts of violence against workers, despite the land being government-owned and despite no restraining order from the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No. 2166 of 2020. Repeated efforts were made by the Applicant, government officials, and the Gram Panchayat to pacify the villagers and explain the benefits of the facility, but to no avail. Despite repeated representations seeking protection and assistance, the authorities failed to ensure completion and security of the project. The Collector, Kondagaon, vide letter dated 14.09.2020, acknowledged that while 70% of work was complete and could be finished with police protection, maintaining the facility post-completion would be unfeasible, recommending relocation of the project. Shockingly, the leased land was later allotted to a third party without following due process, thereby repudiating the Agreement by conduct. The Applicant, having incurred heavy expenses towards tender participation, environmental clearances, permissions, civil works, plant and machinery, salaries, legal costs, 4 and having suffered loss of expected profits, issued a Demand Notice on 29.11.2023 seeking reimbursement and damages, followed by a legal notice on 03.01.2024 invoking Clause 13 of the Agreement for amicable settlement. Receiving no response within the stipulated time, the Applicant invoked arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, via notice dated 23.01.2024, nominating Hon’ble Shri Justice Dhirendra Mishra (Retd.) as its arbitrator. The Non-Applicants, however, failed to appoint their nominee, leading to failure in constituting the Arbitral Tribunal. As there is no dispute regarding the existence of the arbitration clause and all pre-arbitration requirements stand fulfilled, the Applicant is now constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with the agreed procedure to adjudicate and resolve the disputes arising from the Agreement. 4. Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Applicant, an ISO 9001:2008 certified company, was duly selected through a transparent tender process by the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board for setting up and operating a Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility in Bastar Division, and executed a Master Service Agreement dated 04.07.2018 after furnishing the requisite performance guarantee. Pursuant thereto, land was allotted on a 30-year lease and the Applicant completed nearly 90% of the project works at its own expense, including expenditure towards tender compliance, environmental clearances, 5 civil works, and procurement of plant and machinery. However, on account of persistent and violent opposition from local villagers, and the failure of the authorities to provide adequate protection despite repeated requests and in the absence of any restraining order from the Hon’ble High Court, the project could not be commissioned. It was further submitted that the Collector, Kondagaon, though acknowledging the feasibility of completion with police protection, later recommended relocation, and the leased land was thereafter allotted to a third party, amounting to repudiation of the Agreement without following due process. Learned counsel submitted that, having suffered substantial financial loss and loss of opportunity, the Applicant issued demand and legal notices under Clause 13 of the Agreement and subsequently invoked arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by nominating its arbitrator; however, the Non-Applicants failed to appoint theirs, leading to failure in constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, thereby necessitating the intervention of this Hon’ble Court under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal. 5. Learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents relying on the return filed on behalf of the respondents, opposes this arbitration request application, however they submit that the respondents shall have no objection if this Court appoints any Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6 7. A query was put to learned counsel appearing for the parties as to whether they are agreeable for a common name who can be appointed as Arbitrator, learned counsel for the parties submitted that they would have no objection if any retired Judge of this High Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. They further submit that Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra, who is a retired Judge of this High Court may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 8. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra a retired Judge of this High Court is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 9. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra in the proper address. 10. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 11. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rahul Dewangan