1 2026:CGHC:14410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 18 of 2026 M/s. Moon Caterers S/o Shri Rafik Mohammad Aged About 36 Years Through Its Proprietor, Mohammad Shoaib,s/o Shri Rafik Mohammad R/o 8/8, Bristol Chowk, Chotapara, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan,atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt Raipur C.G. 2. Raipur Smart City Limited Through Its Managing Director Chhatrapati Shivajee Maharaj Outdoor Stadium, Near Vivekanand Sarovar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 3. The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner White House, Near Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4. Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant Nos. 1 and 4: Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. For Non-Applicant Nos. 2 and 3: Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. This is an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that non-applicant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.03.28 15:54:41 +0530 2 No. 01 invited proposals, Proposal No. 70115 dated 17.12.2020 for selection of bidders to Design, Development, Implementation. Operation and Maintenance of Smart Parking Management" at Multi Level Car Parking (MLCP) located at EAC Colony in Raipur on Annual License fee basis. The Applicant was successful in the aforesaid bid and as a result a license agreement was drawn between the parties. The license period agreed by the parties was 5 years, which may extendable for another term of 5 years at sole discretion of the Authority. The Annual License fee fixed by the Non-applicants authority is Rs. 15,11,926./-. which was to be paid in two instalments i.e., 1st Instalment- within 30 days of issuance of LoA and before signing of agreement and 2nd Installment- before completion of 15 days of three months from the effective date. The applicant submitted TDR dated 21.05.2021 for a value equivalent to 6 months of quoted annual license fee of the highest bidder i.e. Rs. 7,56,000/- towards performance security. Consequently a work order was issued on 13/09/2021. The applicant wrote a letter to Non-applicants no. 01 regarding payment of parking pass fee of the vehicles belonging to Collectorate employees which has been pending for 11 months. The applicant paid Rs. 4,68,319/- and communicated the same to the Non-applicants no. 01 vide letter dt. 15/06/2023. Non-applicants No. 01 illicitly cancelled the said License agreement on 21/07/2023 without service of notice to the applicant, arbitrarily denying any opportunity of hearing. Non-applicants have caused grave and huge losses to the applicant financially by way of constructing a BPO in the 5th and 6th floor of the MLCP violating the terms of the License Agreement. The same was informed by way of letter dt. 23/05/2023. The applicant have carried out work and maintained MLCP space as per the instructions of the authorities while the Non-applicants have grossly erred in fulfilling their duties like pending payments for Collectorate vehicles which were kept free of cost. The 3 applicant, on 10/12/2022 & 11/12/2022, preferred a detailed representation to the non-applicants stating non-payment of parking fee for 14 months amounting to Rs. 23,49,144/-. The applicant approached before this Hon'ble Court challenging the tender cancellation order in WPC No. 3531/2023 with order to avail the remedy of arbitration. The license agreement in its clause 6.2 provides for Arbitration as a method of dispute resolution governed by the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 hereinafter referred to as Act, 1996). Section 29A of the Act, 1996 provides time limit of 12 months for arbitral award, keeping in in ind speedy and effective conclusion of arbitral proceedings. It is crucial to be noted herein that till date Non-Applicant No. 01 has not appointed any arbitrator despite Court's order. That, the applicant even preferred a notice for initiation and appointment of arbitrator but the non-applicants have paid no heed to it. It is to be noted herein that till date that no fresh tender has been advertised by non-applicant No. 01. The MLCP is being run without any administration and furthermore, the Non- applicants have now occupied multiple floors for purposes other than parking. As a consequence of the aforesaid letters to the Non-applicants for payment of arrears, Non-Applicant No. 01. illicitly, in order to escape payment or arrears, served impugned recovery order dated 18/08/2023 amounting Rs. 22,39,903 against the applicant. 3. According to the petitioner, the non-applicant authorities have in its own contravention has completely overlooked the clause 6.2.5 of the license agreement. The same is being extracted hereunder as: “6.2.5 Performance during Arbitration Pending the submission of and/or decision on a dispute and until the arbitral award is published: the Parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement, without prejudice to a final adjustment in accordance with such award." 4 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the applicant submits that non-applicants are sailing two boats at the same time, when on one hand relying upon the license agreement for dispute resolution yet at the same time completely overlooking another clause in the same license agreement which requires it to continue the performance of duties by the parties until arbitral award is published. From the above stated facts that good number of disputes have arose between the parties and according to provisions set out under clause 6.2.5 of Dispute Resolution in License agreement, such disputes are to be settled by way of arbitration. The applicant has approached the Secretary, the authority designated in License for appointment of the Arbitrator, to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal, but the Non-applicants have failed to constitute such Arbitral Tribunal within the statutory period of 30 days as specified under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 and thereby their right to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal stands forfeited. Thus, the applicant has reached to the Hon'ble High Court with prayer to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal by the Hon'ble Chief Justice or the designated judge for the purpose. The applicant is supported with an affidavit. The License agreement has been executed by and between the parties for the work site situated in Raipur so this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to decide this application. 5. On the last date of hearing, i.e. on 19.03.2026, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 had submitted that the respondent No. 2 had written to the respondent No.1/Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Urban Administration and Development, for initiation of arbitration proceedings. He had also submitted that a reminder was also sent on 02.01.2026. The applicant had also written to respondent No. 1 on 15.11.2025 requesting initiation of arbitration proceedings, however, the respondent No. 1 had not called both the parties or taken any steps in this 5 regard. 6. The learned State counsel had also submitted that he would inform this Court on the next date as to why the concerned Secretary had not initiated the arbitration proceedings despite requests being made by the parties. 7. Today, learned State counsel submits that the as per his instructions, the Secretary concerned would initiate the proceedings of arbitration within a week, therefore, the instant arbitration request may be disposed of. 8. Since the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Urban Administration would initiate the arbitration proceedings, as aforesaid, within a period of one week, this arbitration request petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti / Rajshekhar