( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the application filed under Section 20 read with Sections 5, 9, 12 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, by a company which had entered into a contract with respondent No. 1 for the construction of himachal Bhavan at New Delhi.

( 2 ) ON 22nd August 1978 the work for construction of the said Bhavan was awarded to the petitioner. The contract provided that the work was to be completed on or before 5th September 1980. There was, however delay in completion of the work. According to the petitioner the delay was on account of the late handing over of the site of the work by respondent 1 ;and besides there were other acts of omission and commission on the part of respondent I which prevented the construction being completed with the stipulated time.

( 3 ) AFTER the work was completed the final bill was submitted. The bill, as submitted, was not passed in toto and certain deductions were made. According to the petitioner the agreement between the parties contained an abitration clause namely Clause 25 of the contract which, inter alia, stipulated that in the event of any dispute arising between the parties, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. The clause further provided that it would not be objectionable if the arbitrator so appointed is Government servant.

( 4 ) CERTAIN disputes arose between the parties, inter alia, regarding the interpretation of some of the clauses of the contract. The petitioner then wrote on 26th February 1984 to the respondent asking it to appoint an arbitrator. The respondent appointed Shri S. C. Kohli, Superintending Engineer, as the arbitrator. After sometime Shri S. C. Kohli resigned and thereupon Shri P. C. Bisht, another Superintending Engineer was apponted in his place

( 5 ) THE petitioner desired that the person who is appointed as an arbitrator should have a legal background, inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, the case involved interpretation of different clauses of the contract which were questions of law. The petitioner then filed the present petition, inter alia, contending that the arbitrator who had been appointed did not have legal background and furthermore, there had been delay in the conduct of the proceedings. The petitioner prayed that another arbitrator should be appointed, having legal background, and he should be an independent person.

( 6 ) IN reply filed on behalf of the respondents it is not disputed that the arbitration agreement exists. The respondents have stated that it is not obligatory on them to appoint an arbitrator with a legal background and on the case of the respondents is that the arbitrators who have been appointed were persons who were competent enough to decide the disputes arising in the present case.

( 7 ) THE respondents in their reply have also raised a preliminary objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to decide this application. The contention of the respondents is that the agreement between the parties restricts the jurisdiction of the courts to decide any dispute between the parties to the Courts in Himachal Pradesh and thereby, the jurisdiction of this court is ousted. It is also the case of the respondents that in any event in view of the provisions of Section 2 (c) of the Arbitration Act, this court is not the appropriate court.

( 8 ) BEFORE dealing with the aforesaid preliminary objection, I may notice that during the pendency of this petition Shri Bisht has also resigned and a new arbitrator had to be appointed. A suggestion was mooted that the respondents may appoint Legal Remembrancer to the Government, the Advocate General or the Secretary (Law) as the arbitrator. Counsel for the respondents took time to seek instructions and then informed the Court that the Government was not willing to appoint any of the three persons. I am told that after the resignation of Shri Bish