( 2026:HHC:40041 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.199 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 18.09.2026 Sunil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and another ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarunjeet Singh Bhogal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner-contractor seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator, keeping in view the fact that there is a Clause 25 of the agreement for the executed work of “Repair and Renovation of roof of Conference Hall, provision of corridor covering, and some miscellaneous works in SIB dormer office, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide notice dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure A-2), the respondents were put on notice, and three Advocates of this Court were nominated for appointment as an Arbitrator. 3. The respondents replied on 20.11.2025 (Annexure A-3), suggesting that the dispute be referred to a conciliator (ADG Chandigarh) in accordance with Clause 25.1 of the Agreement, using the proforma prescribed in Appendix XVII mentioned in Schedule-F, under intimation to the other party. 4. Resultantly, a request was made by the petitioner on 27.03.2026 (Annexure A-4) to the conciliator (ADG Chandigarh) to adjudicate the dispute in terms of clause 25.1 of the Agreement. Thereafter, the respondents replied on 06.04.2026 (Annexure A-5), requesting that the claims be submitted in the proforma prescribed under Appendix XVII of Schedule-F of the GCC, under intimation to the other party. Accordingly, a reminder was sent by the petitioner on 07.05.2026 (Annexure A-7), however, the respondents failed to respond thereto, which led to the filing of the present petition. 5. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2-Union of India. 3 6. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that if the needful is done regarding the proforma prescribed in Appendix XVII, as mentioned in Schedule-F of the GCC, the respondents will make a decision on the said proforma and the request made earlier. 7. Keeping in view the above, nothing has been shown to this Court to prove that the demand was originally submitted in accordance with the prescribed proforma. Resultantly, it is always open to the petitioner to apply using the prescribed proforma, and the respondents shall take a call on the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the above said observations, along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 18th September, 2026 (Munish Thakur)