( 2025:HHC:39820 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.193 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 21.11.2025 Rajinder Singh Mehta ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 for appointment of an Arbitrator, in view of Clause 25 of the tender document/contract agreement for construction work of the M.T. of Joharji to Sua Km.8/00 to 13/00 (SH-metalling and Tarring, V shape side drain, PCC Parapets, Edge Wall and maintenance of 5 years in Km.8/0 to 13/0 under Package No.HP-11-87 World Bank PMGSY (Phase-II), vide Executive Engineer B&R Division, HPPWD 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Kasuali, letter No.KSLI/AB-PMGSY-WB-RRP-II tender/2015- 3825-2 dated 23.06.2015. 2. The requisite notice as such was served on 26.11.2024 (Annexure P-3), since, the contract has been executed in the year 2015-2016. 3. The petitioner had asked to appoint an independent Arbitrator in terms of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and on account of the fact that there was no response as such, hence, the present petition has been filed. 4. The stand in the reply, filed by the respondents-State as such is that the work was inspected by different State Quality Monitors and the quality of work was graded as unsatisfactory in all the three inspections. 5. The work was delayed due to poor performance by the Contractor and only completed on 30.05.2020. The final bill of this awarded work was prepared by the J.E. and payment was made in favour of the petitioner as full and final payment on 03.09.2022 and nothing is due to be paid by the respodents- State. 6. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion, keeping in view the fact that the parties have agreed to resolve the dispute by way of an independent 3 Arbitrator, therefore, the matter is liable to be as such settled by way of the forum which the parties had agreed to resolve the matter by way of arbitration. 7. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is allowed and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, former Judge, R/o Neekul Villa, near Electricity sub-station Ghodpa, Mehli Gusan Road, Mehli-171013, Shimla, Hiimachal Pradesh (Contact No.9816057297) is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Only 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, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, former Judge, 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. 4 10. Accordingly, the application is disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 21st November, 2025 (Munish Thakur)