Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT application has been filed u/S. 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator.
(2.) THE applicant is a proprietorship firm, engaged in construction and contract business, as alleged in the petition. The respondents invited NIT No. 128/2010 -11 for construction of RCC Tanka including filtration Pit, providing, laying and jointing PVC pipe and O&M for three years in Panchayat Samiti Srinagar and Pisangan under Rain Water Harvesting Structure in Gram Panchayat Saradhana & Sandriya of Panchayat Samiti Pisangan, Srinagar, District Ajmer and the applicant submitted tender for the said work and being found eligible, the work contract was awarded to him. It is not disputed that a contract agreement executed between the parties contain arbitration Cl. 23 to resolve arbitral dispute, if arises out of the terms & conditions of contract agreement. For ready reference, Cl. 23 is reproduced ad infra: - Clause -23. If any question, difference or objection whatsoever shall, in any way in connection with or arising out of this instrument or the meaning of operation of any part thereof or the rights, duties, or liabilities of either party, then save so far as the decision of any such matter as herein before provided has been otherwise provided for and whether it has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated and as regards the rights or obligations of the parties as the result of such termination shall be referred for adjudication to the empowered Standing Committee which would consist of the following: - a) Administrative Secretary concerned b) Finance Secretary or his Nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary c) Law Secretary or his nominee not below the rant of joint L.R. d) Chief Engineer -cum -Additional Secretary of the concerned department. e) Chief Engineer concerned (Member Secretary) f) Administrative Secretary concerned The Engineer -in -Charge on receipt of application along with prescribed fee (the fee would be two percent of the amount in dispute not exceeding Rs. One Lakh) from the contractor shall refer the dispute to the Committee within a period of one month from the date of receipt of application. As it reveals, a dispute arose between the parties arising from the contract agreement executed between the parties and in order to settle and to refer the dispute to Standing Empowered Committee, a notice dt. 27.11.2012 was sent by the applicant invoking Cl. 23 of the Contract Agreement which came to be served indisputably in the office of respondents on 03.12.2012 and the present application came to be filed on 31.05.2013 by that point of time, no steps were taken by the respondents informing the applicant regarding matter being referred to the Standing Empowered Committee invoking Cl. 23 of the Contract Agreement.
(3.) REPLY to the application has been filed by the respondents and it has been averred that the application which was filed by the applicant at one stage u/S. 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected by the ld. Trial Court. However, in the additional affidavit, a letter has been placed on record as Ann. R/5 dt. 11.12.2012 wherein the Executive Engineer has sent the matter to the Superintending Engineer, in terms of Cl. 23 of the Contract Agreement but neither copy thereof was endorsed to the applicant nor any active steps were taken by the Standing Empowered Committee, pursuant thereto. However, thereafter meeting of Standing Empowered Committee was held on 25.03.2014 that too without notice to the applicant which is much after filing of the present application by the applicant invoking S. 11(6) of the Act, 1996 for appointment of independent Arbitrator.;