1 2025:HHC:20281 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Arb. Case No. 102 of 2025 Decided on: 27.06.2025 Desh Raj Thakur ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P & anr. ..Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present petition has been filed for appointment of the Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the petitioner-contractor. 2. The Arbitration Agreement contains Clause 25 for settlement of dispute by way of arbitration. 3. The petitioner was awarded the work of “Construction of Pre-Fabricated Zonal Leprosy Hospital at Lohanji, District Solan, H.P” vide agreement No.117 of 2018- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:20281 ) 19. The claim of the petitioner is that vide award dated 21.7.2018, the project was to be completed at the cost of Rs.1,92,08,529/- within a period of four months. On account of access by way of site development and road not having been executed, the same could not be done. The drawings of the two storeyed pre-fabricated structure having 26 rooms were got prepared from IIT, Roorkee and submitted for its approval and, therefore, payment of 8th and final bill amounting to Rs.9,60,420/- is outstanding apart from the escalation costs and increase in pre-fabricated material etc., for which claim has been put forth on the strength of Clause 25 of the agreement. 4. Respondents were put to notice on 31.10.2023 regarding this aspect and proposal was made for appointment of the Arbitrator. 5. In the reply filed, it is denied that payments have not been made and it is submitted that only the 9th and final bill Amounting to Rs.87,401/- remains to be paid to the petitioner and issue of the petition being time barred is also being raised as such while highlighting the fact that the petitioner has failed to execute the work within a time frame as such. 3 2025:HHC:20281 ) 6. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have agreed as such, for the dispute inter se the parties, being settled by way of arbitration, this Court is of the opinion that matter can be referred for arbitration. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, retired Chief Engineer (Mob. No.9136357884), is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, since the matter is technical in nature and it would be appropriate for an Engineer to go into this aspect. His appointment as an Arbitrator shall come into force 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, Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, retired Chief Engineer 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 4 2025:HHC:20281 ) to fee as per stipulation contained in 4th Schedule appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 10. Accordingly, the application is disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. June 27, 2025 ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) (mamta) Chief Justice