M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) ALL these interlocutory applications arose out of aforesaid Arbitration Application Nos. 27, 28, 35, 36 and 37 of 2004, which were disposed of on 30.3.2005. Since in all these interlocutory applications, common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) PETITIONERS haves filed these interlocutory applications under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of substituted arbitrator in place of O.P. No. 3 the Superintending Engmeer, Road Construction Department, Dhanbad, the named arbitrator. Petitioners case is that pursuant to common order dated 30.3.2005 passed in Arbitration Application Nos. 27, 28, 45, 46 and 47 of 2004, the dispute and differences were referred to O.P. No.3 -Superintending Engineer for decision. It is stated that respondent No.3 -the Superintending Engineer refused and declined the appointment and refused to be arbitrator in all the cases and, therefore, according to the petitioner, the appointment of the arbitrator stood terminated and, hence a substituted arbitrator is to be appointed as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act.
(3.) I have heard Mr. N.K.Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr Manjul Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the State.;