IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's failure to exhaust the mandatory dispute resolution procedure as per the contract rendered the petition premature and non-maintainable.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. - By way of the present petitions filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the `A&C Act`), the petitioner seeks appointment of Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

2. The petition has been filed against Respondent No.1/RITES Ltd. and Respondent No.2/Ramjas College, an educational institute affiliated with the University of Delhi. The petitioner stated that Respondent No.1 having been hired by Respondent No.2 invited to tender for construction work of renovation and upgradation of the Auditorium in the campus of Respondent No.2, at University Enclave, Delhi. The petitioner was declared as successful bidder and pursuant thereto entered into a contract with Respondent No.1 on 29.04.2016 through Agreement No. RITES/CP/TC/Ramjas/Auditorium/2015 for a contract value of Rs.2,46,34,549.41/-. The LOA was issued on 29.12.2015 with the stipulated start on 14.01.2016 and completion by 08.09.2016. However, the work was actually completed on 19.04.2018.

3. It has been stated that the work was delayed on account of various reasons such as not providing hindrance free site, nonsupply drawing and specifications etc. However, the work was completed to the satisfaction of the Respondent and provisional completion certificate was handed over on 19.04.2018 and final completion certificate was issued on 27.08.2018 with a delay of3 months.

4. The petitioner submitted that the final bill was submitted by the Petitioner in January 2019 and the same was verified by the Respondents and certified for Rs.2,69,83,534/- on 14.10.2019. However, the respondent only paid Rs.2,17,66,547/- leaving balance amount of Rs.42,32,120/-. The petitioner alleged that the respondent wrongly withheld the balance amount Rs.42,32,120/- and GST amount of the certified final bill since from October 2019amounting Rs.6,06,346/-. It has further been submitted that on account of delay in issuance of the completion certificate the petitioner also incurred an extra expenditure of Rs.1,20,000/- for engaging manpower for watch and ward forthe safety of the building.

5. It has been submitted that the delay was attributable to the respondent only. The petitioner has also listed various other claims on account of freezing the Government Indices, extra expenditure for getting extension policy premium for vehicle and labour, site expenses due to extended period of contract and prolongation of contract. The loss of profit had also been claimed.

6. The petitioner raised the dispute with the respondentthrough General Manager on 08.03.2022 and invoked arbitration clause of the agreement for the appointment of an Arbitrator. Subsequently vide letter dated 12.04.2022, the arbitration was specifically invoked but no response was received. The petitioner again sent a reminder on 13.08.2022.

7. The notice was issued to the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 in its reply stated that the agreement was entered into by the Respondent No.1 for and on behalf of Respondent No.2 acting as an Agent/Power of Attorney holder of Respondent No.2. It was stated that the Letter of Acceptance and the tender was also floated on behalf of Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 acted only as an agent throughout. It was stated that in view of the same and as per Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act Respondent No.1 cannot be sued by the Petitioner and therefore, is entitled to be deleted from the array of parties.

8. Reliance has been placed upon RITES Vs. Shabbir Ahmed, OMP No.13/2013 and RPP Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. RITES Ltd., Arb. P. No.35/2016.

9. The respondent has further submitted that even otherwise there is no liability/obligation upon Respondent No.1 to make any payment, even in respect of the certification of work done by the Answering Respondent.

10. Reference has been made to Clause 7 of the Contract which reads as under:

"Since the Contract is being entered into with t