R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 10.8.2000 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala who rejected the prayer of the petitioner for the removal of Shri Ashok Sood, the Arbitrator, who was nominated by the Chief Engineer S. Sarabjit Singh, for the reasons given in para No. 9 of the impugned order, which is reproduced as under :- "After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant M/s Bhullar Construction Company. Admittedly, Shri Sarabjit Singh, Superintending Engineer was appointed as Sole arbitrator by the Chief Engineer on 6.10.1998 and the statements of the claims were filed on 11.12.1998 by the appellant and the respondents filed the counter claims on 5.5.1999 and after filing of the rejoinder, the proceedings were adjourned for 9.6.1999. After 9.6.1999, no proceedings were held. The present petition was filed 3.1.2000 and Shri Sarabjit Singh, Superintending Engineer, appointed Arbitrator was promoted and thereafter a panel of Arbitrators as per the terms and conditions was submitted and as per clause 67 of the Agreement, the Arbitrator has to be appointed from amongst the officers of the rank of serving Superintending Engineers of the Department and Shri Ashok Sood, Superintending Engineer has been appointed as Arbitrator. There are no allegations of misconduct on the part of the previous Arbitrator and the new Arbitrator has been appointed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that it is for the Court to appoint the Arbitrator, is without any basis and the Court has to appoint the Arbitrator once the department fails to appoint the named Arbitrator. In the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant M/s. Deepak Galvanizing and Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of India (supra), it was held that once the department fails to appoint the named Arbitrator, then it loses right to appoint the named arbitrator and contractor is entitled to move the Court for appointing a new Arbitrator, but in this case, the department has already appointed the named Arbitrator and as such this authority is not applicable. In case of Satya Kailashchandra Sahu and othersv. M/s Vidharbha Distillers and others (supra) the Arbitrator refused to act as Arbitrator and there was no agreement for appointing another Arbitrator and in that case it was held that the Chief Justice is required to take necessary measures for appointment of Arbitrator but this authority is not again applicable because in the present case, the appointed arbitrator was promoted as Chief Engineer and as such he could not continue with the arbitration proceedings and the new Arbitrator Shri Ashok Sood has been appointed as per the terms and conditions of Clause 67 of the agreement. The present application was filed by the applicant M/s Bhullar Construction Company, under Sections 14 read with Section 15 of the Act for termination of the mandate of the sole Arbitrator Shri Sarabjit Singh, respondent No. 3 and for his replacement by another impartial and independent sole arbitrator and for staying the proceedings before the sole arbitrator Shri Sarvjeet Singh respondent. Thus, the mandate of the respondent No. 3 has been automatically terminated with his promotion and on the appointment of a new Arbitrator as well as the prayer for staying the proceedings before him also become infructuous as he is no more acting as Arbitrator."
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner. Shri Sarabjit Singh, when he was serving as Superintending Engineer was nominated as an Arbitrator by the Chief Engineer in terms of Clause 67 of the agreement which lays down that the appointment of the Arbitrator shall be from amongst the officers of the rank of the serving Superintending Engineers of the Department. The petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 for the removal of the Arbitrator Shri Sarabjit Singh on the plea that he has not taken sufficient steps in the proceedings. Shri Sarabjit Singh filed reply annexure P-3 and he stated that he was very busy and hence was not in a position to perform the duty of Arbitrator in the said matter. In the meanwhile Shri Sarabjit Singh the sole Arbitrator was promoted as Chief Engineer. In the capacity of a Chief Engineer he nominated Shri Ashok Sood, as Arbitrator in his place in terms of Clause 67 of the agreement. The petitioner made a prayer that this appointment of Shri Ashok Soods, as an Arbitrator, by Sarabjit Singh, is illegal and against the provisions of law. This prayer did not find favour with the Court. Hence the present revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of this case.
(3.) THE grouse of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold; firstly, that Shri Sarabjit Singh could not nominate Shri Ashok Sood and secondly when the petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, is pending before the Civil Court, any action on the part of the Chief Engineer for the appointment of Arbitrator is illegal.;