ORDER :

1. Today, the matter has been listed under the heading “for orders (with defect).”

2. Perused the office note.

3. Office has pointed out the defect, as defect no. 2, to the effect that typed copy of page no. 26 has not been filed. However, from perusal of page no. 26, it appears that page no. 26 of the memo of application is legible one, as such defect, as pointed out by the office, is ignored.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard on merit.

5. The instant application has been filed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and respondents-CCL arising out of contract agreement.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner entered into a contract with the respondents on 14th February, 2018 for the work “Hiring of Equipment for Removal and Extraction of Overburden (including Interburden) and Extraction of Coal at Rabodh Patch Phase-III (Sector-I) of Pindra Colliery of Kuju Area” for the value of Rs. 35,24,58,110.90/- (INR Thirty-Five Crores Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty-Eight Thousand One Hundred and Ten Rupees Ninety Paise Only).

It is the case of the petitioner that since the very beginning of the contract, he faced many problems which were communicated by him to the respondents-CCL time to time. The problems faced by the petitioner, as mentioned in the arbitration application, are as under:

(a) The petitioner was not given area as per the specification. The contract stipulated an area of 345 m x 300 m, while the area provided to us was 275 m x 106 m. This was further reduced as opening permission for the VI/VII seem was not granted as such the workable area shrinked to only 275 m x 60 m.

(b) The site was not encumbrance free and there were several impediments. The population would often disrupt the site as they came up with their grievance for rehabilitation which was to be addressed by CCL.

(c) As per NIT, the de-watering of the allotted area was to be done by the Employer, which was not done.

(d) There was deficiency in lighting and water-pumps, despite prior assurance from the employer that such equipment would be provided in sufficient quantity at the worksite.

In spite of all these odds, the petitioner took all steps to move ahead with the execution of the work, but all of a sudden the contract was placed under temporary suspension by the respondents w.e.f. 30.07.2018, communicating the petitioner that work was to be stopped due to lack of statutory permission from the Directorate General of Mines Safety, which is still continuing and as such the agreement remained under suspension for almost three years, which led huge loss to the petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that since the dispute had arisen as such the petitioner, taking recourse to the mechanism prescribed under the Contract dated 14th February, 2018, submitted application on 21.07.2021 for resolution of dispute, stating therein that the respondents were under statutory obligation to take the required clearances and obtain ‘Consent to Operate’ the mines, but it was not done by the respondents, due to which, the execution of the work in the entire area allotted to the petitioner was to shut down and contract was placed under ‘temporary suspension, causing huge loss to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the damages caused to the petitioner on account of breach of fundamental terms and conditions of the contract.

It has been submitted that when no reply to the application submitted by the petitioner was made, the petitioner made second step as provided under Clause 13 of the Contract and requested the respondent to constitute a committee as per Clause 13 of the Contract and take a decision regarding the claims submitted by the petitioner but no action was taken on the part of the respondents.

It has further been submitted that aft