Subhash Thakur vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

Petitioner was awarded work of upgradation of a road, vide award dated 30.3.2007, copy Annexure P-3. When the Petitioner had executed more than half of the work, objection was raised by the Forest Department of the State, that road could not have been constructed, unless there was a clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Work has been stalled since then. Petitioner required the Respondents, who awarded the work, to get clearance from the concerned authorities, under the Act and also to make payment for the work already executed, but to no avail. He then served a notice for appointment of arbitrator, in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement, copy Annexure P-1.

Respondents, in their reply, have stated that matter regarding appointment of arbitrator is being processed. Their reply is dated 29.12.2010. Notice for appointment of arbitrator was served upon the Chief Engineer, PWD, in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement, on 20.8.2010.

Appointment, having not been made within 30 days of the service of notice and also there being no denial that dispute has arisen between the parties, in terms of the aforesaid Clause 25 of the agreement, application is allowed and Shri Satyen Vaidya, Advocate, who is present in Court and is willing to act as Arbitrator, is appointed as arbitrator. His fee is fixed at Rs. 35,000/-, inclusive of ministerial expenses. His fee and expenses shall be deposited at the first instance by the Petitioner, but the ultimate liability for payment of such fee and expenses shall be adjudicated by the arbitrator himself.