Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising with the Respondents in connection with F-2 Agreement No. 1/2006 dated 04.04.2006 and Supplementary Agreement dated 26.2.2008.
(3.) On 14.7.2017 upon consideration of the plea of the petitioner following order was recorded:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that surviving defects have been removed by filing court fees. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Clause-23 of the Agreement No. 1 F 2 of 2006-07 and supplementary agreement dated 26.02.2008, the petitioner has raised arbitration dispute. He had approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 4760 of 2014 in respect of the same agreement with a prayer to either provide necessary police protection for completion of construction work and also appropriate price escalation in order to complete the remaining work or in the alternative had requested for closure of the agreement, refund of earnest money, security deposit and arrears of running account bill without imposing any penalty upon him. Vide order dated 11.07.2016, Annexure-3, the writ petition was disposed of to enable the petitioner to approach the competent authority/respondent no. 5, Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Latehar with a representation. The concerned respondent was directed to take a decision within a reasonable time. Thereafter by the reasoned order dated 26.06.2016, respondent no. 5, Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Latehar has held the petitioner wholly responsible for non completion of bridge and upheld the decision to forfeit the security deposit. Petitioner thereafter invoked arbitration clause and requested the nominated official i.e. Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Department, Work Circle, Medninagar to enter into reference and adjudicate his claim in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vide letter dated 12.12.2016, Annexure-5. Having failed to act in response thereof, petitioner has approached this Court in the present application for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11 (6) of the Act of 1996. Learned JC to AG representing the State prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file their counter affidavit in the matter positively. List it accordingly after three weeks on tied up day.";