JAVED IQBAL WANI,J. - (1.)Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short, 'the Act'), the petitioner herein seeks substitution of the arbitrator appointed upon filing of a petition before this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of arbitrator. While disposing of the said petition, this Court in terms of order dated 06.12.2016 directed the Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone to appoint a competent arbitrator with requisite qualification who shall enter upon the reference and pass the award within the prescribed period.
(2.)According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent- Chief Engineer in compliance to order dated 06.12.2016 appointed Sh. Jainesh Kumar, SE, Director (Des and Plg), Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone, Pathankot as the sole arbitrator for adjudicating upon the disputes inter-se the parties vide order/letter dated 11.01.2017. According to the learned counsel, the arbitrator did enter upon the reference and consequently, the parties filed their respective claims and counter claims before him.
(3.)According to the learned counsel, the said sole arbitrator in terms of letter dated 12.01.2018 informed the Chief Engineer Pathankot Zone, about his resignation as sole arbitrator from the case on account of his posting outside the State, whereupon Chief Engineer vide order/letter dated 23.01.2018 appointed a new arbitrator, namely, Sh. Vinay Kumar, S.E., HQ. Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone, Pathankot, as new sole arbitrator in place of the earlier sole arbitrator. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the newly appointed arbitrator after more than seven months from the date of his appointment did not enter upon the reference for conducting arbitration proceedings on one hand and on the other hand the respondents issued recovery notice against the petitioner in respect of the matters covered under arbitration.