Page 1 of 4 Arb P. No.27/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Arb. P No.27/2023 Reserved on : 13.03.2025 Pronounced on : 20.03.2025 Northern Express Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Shop No. 4 and 5, 1st Floor, Narian Tower Gandhi Nagar, Colghar, Gorakhpur-273001 U.P. India, through its authorized representative Sanjiv Kumar Sharma S/o Mr. J. K. Sharma R/o D-21 Sector-40, Noida 201301 U.P. aged 55 years. .…Petitioner. Through: Mr. Showkat Ali Khan, Advocate. Vs. 1. Vice Chairman J&K Lakes, Conservation and Management Authority LCMA Complex Miskeen Bagh, Srinagar-190003. 2. Executive Engineer, Lakes Division No. I J&K LCMA, Miskeen Bagh Khanyar, Srinagar. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was granted a contract of: Dredging of acquired land at Hazratbal Basin of Dal Lake near Tilla Mohalla Ashai Bagh including Construction of Dike near Check Saderbal Nigeen vide allotment order bearing No. LDA 25 of 2021-22 dated 24.02.2022. The period stipulated for completion of the work was four Page 2 of 4 Arb P. No.27/2023 months from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent vide No. LD- I/LOI/9643-47 dated 05.01.2022 i.e., upto 12.05.2022. 3. It is averred in the petition that work was to be done in three parts and two parts whereof were executed, however, the third part could not be executed on account of non-removal of impediments existing at the site of work. It is stated that despite repeated written requests the impediments like removal of high tension lines and transformers were not removed and besides that houses which were acquired were not removed hindering the dredging work. It is also pleaded that locals living in the area also made obstructions in execution of the work and finally the respondents cancelled the allotment. 4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the cancellation of allotment order, therefore, vide letter dated 28th March, 2023, invoked the arbitration clause as contained in the Manual for Procurement of Works 2019 and requested for appointment of an arbitrator to decide the genuineness of the claim raised by the petitioner. 5. On notice of the petition, the respondents caused their presence and filed objections to the petition contending that the applicant’s claim that the project has been hindered by local interference is misleading and factual position is that applicant’s dredger faced extended breakdown period, which impacted the execution of work. In so far as the impediments in the shape of electric poles/ line and water pipes were acknowledged by the respondents and matter was taken up with the concerned department and the applicant was asked to commence the work from another section of the site free from encumbrances. It is further Page 3 of 4 Arb P. No.27/2023 pleaded that termination of the contract was due to the inability of the petitioner to execute the contract and meet the contractual obligations. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. While going through the pleadings on record, it is prima facie clear that a dispute has arisen between the parties with regard to the subject contract. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide letter dated 28th March, 2023 is demonstrated by the records available on the file. However, the respondents in their objections submit that since the work allotted to the petitioner has not been executed in full, therefore, no arbitral dispute exist between the parties and, as such, the petitioner cannot seek appointment of an arbitrator through the medium of the present petition. 8. The submission that there exists no arbitral dispute is an issue which is not the subject matter to be considered by this court while considering petition for appointment of an arbitrator and the said issue, if at all, has to be addressed by the Arbitral Tribunal after hearing the parties. 9. In the facts and circumstances, since the arbitration clause and the invocation of the arbitration clause by the petitioner are established and coupled with the fact that respondents have failed to refer the dispute to an arbitrator, as provided under the Manual for Procurement of Works 2019, Mr. M. Y. Akhoon, Retired District and Sessions Judge (Cell No.9419042625), 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. Page 4 of 4 Arb P. No.27/2023 10. Arbitration petition stands disposed of. 11. Registry to communicate the order to the arbitrator (supra) through e-mode. (TASHI RABSTAN) Chief Justice Srinagar 20.03.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Whether approved for reporting: Yes/No