A.K.SIKRI J. - (1.) RESPONDENT herein, namely, General Manager, Northern Railway, had issued notice inviting tenders regarding the construction of washable Apron at Platform No. 2 along with the drain between lines No.1 and 2 and through ancillary work in the replacement of washable apron at Jalandhar City station. The petitioner was also one of the bidders who responded to the aforesaid notice.
(2.) AFTER evaluating the bids received by the respondents, the petitioner emerged as successful bidder and was awarded contract vide letter dated 03.08.2009. The work was for an estimated cost of Rs. 1,24,35,962/-. According to the petitioner, after awarding of this work, with an intention to complete the same within the stipulated period, he made all necessary arrangements spending huge amount thereupon. The respondents did not provide complete block at the site where the work was to be executed and which was a fundamental pre-condition and obligation of the respondents. Ultimately, the respondent i.e. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Northern Railway, Jalandhar City wrote a letter dated 01.04.2011 (Annexure P-6) to the Senior DOM, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Ferozepur Cantt. stating that though the work had been awarded to the petitioner on 13.08.2009 but traffic block to execute the work has not been sanctioned till date by the said Division despite regular chasing. The said Division was accordingly requested to sanction traffic block of line No. 2 for 45 days at the earliest to enable the petitioner to execute the work. It was followed by another communication dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure P-7) from the office of Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) Northern Railway, Jalandhar City to the same Senior DOM, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Ferozepur Cantt. In this communication, there is a reference to meeting held between the two authorities on 06.04.2011 wherein after discussion the office of Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) was told that " no traffic block will be sanctioned for above mentioned work as there is no need of this work by the operating department". Since the traffic block was not sanctioned by the concerned authorities, obviously, it could not be handed over by the respondents to the petitioner for undertaking the work awarded to the petitioner. This was treated as breach on the part of the respondents by the petitioner and in these circumstances the petitioner issued legal notice dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P-8) pointing out aforesaid violations on the part of the respondents in fulfilling its contractual obligations by not providing the block. It was accordingly stated that the petitioner was no more legally bound to execute the work because of the said failure and stipulated the claims therein with request to refer the same to the Arbitrator. A perusal of this legal notice further shows that as many as 9 claims are made and at the end this legal notice calls upon the respondents to refer those claims to the Arbitrator in the following manner:- "Now by means of this legal notice I hereby call upon you to refer all the aforesaid claims to the arbitrator within the stipulated period of one month from the date of receipt of this notice failing which my client concern shall be constrained to avail legal remedy in the competent court of law in that eventuality you shall be held responsible for all the costs and consequences in suing therefrom."
(3.) AS one month period was given for appointment of the Arbitrator and the respondents did not appoint the Arbitrator, the present petition under Section 11 of the Act is filed on 18.11.2011 for appointment of the Arbitrator contending that the respondents have forfeited its right to appoint the Arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause and therefore, it is the Court which has the necessary jurisdiction to appoint the Arbitrator.;