Sr. No.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Arb P No.9/2025 M/s Tech Lengends Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner. Through: Mr. Showkat Ali Khan, Advocate. Vs. Union of India ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 10.07.2025 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2. In terms of letter dated 5th June, 2013, contract work “Provn of Augmentation of Water Supply at Naugam” was awarded in favour of the petitioner for a lump sum amount of Rs.3,34,91,076/- to be completed within a period of 24 months. It is stated that owing to the omissions and commissions on the part of the respondents, the execution of the work got delayed and the time was extended by the respondents from time to time till 22nd April, 2023. It is submitted that execution of the work is complete, however, work in relation to overhead tank could not be completed due to change in the drawings with regard to which no deviation order was issued. It is further stated that instead of allowing the petitioner to execute the final part of the work, a final show cause notice has been issued asking the petitioner to execute the work within fifteen days and in failure the contract shall be cancelled. Petitioner, accordingly, submitted his reply to the show cause notice asking the respondents to allow him to complete the work, however, the respondents did not allow the petitioner and joined a dispute and are bent upon to terminate the contract. The petitioner having failed to persuade the respondents to allow him to complete the work, served a legal notice dated January 5, 2025, upon the respondents invoking arbitration clause 70 of the General Conditions of the Contract, seeking appointment of an arbitrator in the matter. But despite service of notice invoking arbitration clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract, the respondents have failed to act and direct appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents though caused appearance but no reply/ response has been filed on their behalf. 4. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 05.01.2025 is not disputed. 5. 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, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir (Former Chief Justice, High Court of Meghalaya), is appointed as the sole arbitrator. Who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. And 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 10.07.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.07.2025 06:34