- (1.) Instant arbitration application has been filed by the applicant u/S.11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator.
(2.) It is alleged in the application that petitioner-applicant is doing business of display of advertisements of its customers since last more than 54 years and on 31.12.2004 notice inviting expression of interest for construction & maintenance of Public Conveniences (Urinals & Toilets) on BOT basis coupled with advertising rights at Jaipur was published by the non-applicant in newspaper Rajasthan Patrika and the applicant submitted its technical bid as well as authorization period bid vide letter dt.17.01.2005 in the office of non-applicant along with requisite documents believing upon the representations made by the non-applicant in the bid documents. Thereafter, work order dt.04.02.2005 was issued in favour of the applicant for construction of 19 Public Utility Urinals & Toilets on BOT basis coupled with advertisement rights at Jaipur.
(3.) It is further alleged that after receipt of the work order, the applicant sent design and drawings with photographs of the location for approval as well as agreement on non-judicial stamp of Rs.100/- duly signed by the applicant to the Executive Engineer, authorized officer of the non-applicant, along with letter dt.11.02.2005. The non-applicant returned the aforesaid agreement which was combined for all the 19 utilities with separate agreement for each utility and applicant sent 19 agreements dt.15.02.2005 for each utility individually signed by him to Executive Engineer of the non-applicant with design, drawings & photographs of the location for approval with letter dt.16.02.2005 and after the approval of design, drawing & photographs and handing over the physical possession of site the work was undertaken in terms of the agreement executed. It has also been alleged in para-12 of the application that the applicant informed to the non-applicant regarding five utilities being completely constructed and awaiting for their formal opening for public use and some locations have also been identified by him but when non-applicant failed to carry out in terms of the agreement executed between the parties, a dispute arisen during the period of the agreement and a notice was served by the petitioner-applicant dt.18.03.2011 which was duly served in the office of the non-applicant and acknowledgment receipt thereof dt.21.03.2011 is on record. After the expiry of the period when non-applicant failed to appoint the sole arbitrator in terms of Clause-19 of the agreement, the applicant approached this court by filing instant application seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator u/S.11 of the Act. It will be relevant to quote Clause-19 of the agreement, which is relevant for the present purpose, ad infra:- 19. Disputes if any, arising during the period of this agreement between the J.M.C. and Bidder shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Mayor, J.M.C. or a person nominated by him. The decision of the sole arbitrator so appointed shall be final and binding on both the parties. ;