MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by petitioner M/s Laxmi Narayan Agarwal through its Proprietor Laxmi Narayan Agrawal, praying for appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the petitioner and respondents arising out of the contract agreement.
(2.) The respondents invited tender for supply, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of various trunk sewers and lateral sewers connecting to terminal sewage pumping station along with all necessary manholes, appurtenances, etc. at Bharatpur town under package RUSDIP/TR-03/BPR/WW/01-Lot-1. The date of receipt of technical proposal was 08.09.2010. In compliance of the said notice-inviting-tender, the Government of Rajasthan issued a notice to proceed on 24.02.2011 and in compliance thereof, a contract agreement was arrived in between Projector Director, Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project and the petitioner. In compliance of the notice to proceed, the petitioner submitted requisite bank guarantee, which was also confirmed. The date of commencement of the work was 24.02.2011 and the contract work was to be completed up to 23.08.2013.
(3.) Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that as per Clause 24.1 of the Contract Agreement, there was a specific provision that if dispute of any kind whatsoever arises between the parties in connection with contract or execution of work, the same shall be referred to Project Manager in writing, who would have jurisdiction over the work specified in contract. The petitioner made a detailed application under Clause 24.1 of the Contract Agreement regarding decision of the respondent to impose provisional liquidity damage for the work of the package. This was in furtherance to the letter dated 04.05.2016, wherein the Executive Engineer has imposed a provisional liquidity damage of 10% of the total cost of work as per contract agreement. As per letter dated 04.05.2016, there was delay but this delay was attributable to the respondents themselves. In the representation, it was also made clear that reasons of delay in construction are described for necessary action. The delay of each and every day has been duly explained. Even then the Executive Engineer has neither calculated liquidity damage on per day basis nor considered Clause 41 of the Contract Agreement. The petitioner therefore requested the Project Director to quash the decision of the Executive Engineer imposing penalty. Reference was made to letter dated 18.08.2016, which contained other dispute, which also requires consideration. There was issue No. 1 regarding payment of extra/excess work done by the contract. Issue No. 2 was in respect of decision regarding laying of 6965 meter remaining sewer line and issue No. 3 was in respect of imposition of liquidity damages by the Executive Engineer.;