Sr. No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No.41/2026 Mool Raj Sharma …Petitioner(s). Through: Mr. Rameshwar Singh Jamwal, Advocate. Vs. Chief Engineer and othrs. ….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Assisting Counsel, vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 15.05.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The petitioner being an A-Class Contractor participated in the bidding process initiated by the respondents for construction of “100- bedded ST/Gujjar & Bakerwal Hostel at Government Degree College Thandapani, Block Sunderbani, District Rajouri” for contract amount of approximate Rs.3,62,74,027/-. For, he was declared as the successful bidder, the contract was allotted in his favour. He mobilized his resources and executed preliminary works for which a part payment of Rs.11,76,296/- is stated to have been released, however, the balance payment of Rs.6,76,296/- remained unpaid. It is submitted that after commencement of the work, the respondents on account of the local resistance repeatedly changed the site of work due to which the work could not be executed. It is urged that despite repeated communications and representations, the respondents failed to resolve the dispute or take any administrative decision and, as such, the petitioner was compelled to seek recourse to the arbitration clause by serving a legal notice seeking balance payment and nomination of Dispute Review Expert. It is urged that respondents having failed to act in the matter, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Hence, the petition at hand. 3. Heard. Notice. 4. Served with advance copy of the petition, Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Assisting Counsel, present in Court, accepts notice. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently disputes/denies the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner. It is urged that the claim of the petitioner is apparently misconceived and untenable, and thus deserves to be rejected. However, the existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner is not disputed. She, accordingly, submits that let an arbitrator be appointed but the respondents be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas in this regard before the arbitrator. 5. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petition is allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. R. P. Singhal, Additional Director General Retd. MES Flat No.6-A, 201, Hazelwood Society, AF, HG Road Zirakpur Punjab (Mob. No.7049983601) 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. The respondents are at liberty to raise all the possible pleas/ objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator. 6. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 15.05.2026 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 18.05.2026 15:39