R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) MR . Samir Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that this Arbitration Application has been filed under section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (The Act for short) on 9.9.2011, for appointment of an independent Arbitrator for deciding the dispute between the parties and make an Award. He further submitted that during the pendency of this case, the Department appointed Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Chaibasa as an Arbitrator on 25.01.2012 in terms of the agreement but the petitioner learnt later on from the letter dated 14.10.2011 issued by the Chief Engineer that the Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Chaibasa had rejected the claim of the petitioner on 18.9.2010. Therefore he submitted that it will not be proper that the said Arbitrator should act as an Arbitrator. He referred to the judgment reported in : (2010) 6 SCC 394 -Denel (Proprietary) Limited Vs. Bharat Electronics Limited and the judgment reported in : (2003) 7 SCC 418 -Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation and Another Vs. Encon Builders (P) Ltd. On the other hand, Mr. Shrest Gautam, learned counsel for the State, submitted that for appointment of another Arbitrator, the petitioner is required to file a civil suit. He referred to sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Act.
(2.) IN my opinion, there is nothing in the said sections, under which the petitioner is required to file a civil suit for change of the Arbitrator on the said ground of likelihood of bias. There is no dispute that the Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Chaibasa had rejected the claim of the petitioner. There is nothing to show that the Superintending Engineer complied with section 12(1) of the Act. In my opinion, an independent Arbitrator should be appointed. Accordingly, Shri Prabodh Ranjan Das, retired District Judge, is appointed as an independent Arbitrator. He will fix the terms of the arbitration proceeding. The parties will appear before him on 30th July, 2012 at 11 A.M. at Jamshedpur, along with a copy of this order. This Arbitration Application thus stands disposed of including I.A. No. 826 of 2012. However, I.A. No. 1926 of 2012 is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise the issues involved in it before the Arbitrator. Let a copy of the order be given to the parties, as prayed.;