APHC010067492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-18 AT AMARAVATI [3441]

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 12 of 2025 M/s. Rajesh Mohanty Construction Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant Vs.

Central Public Works Department and others ...Respondents **********

Advocate for Applicant: Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma Advocate for Respondents: Mr. J. U. M. V. Prasad (Central Government Counsel)

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR th DATE : 12 December, 2025.

P C :

This is an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator for purposes of adjudicating the disputes arising out of and in connection with Agreement No.09/VCD/2021-22.

2. The scope of the work was the Development of Aquaculture Infrastructure for National Fisheries Development Board at Mulapolam in Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh, which had to be completed by

23.08.2022.

3. The applicant claims that work was commenced as per the agreed terms and it was on account of non-cooperation of the respondent-Department that the work could not be completed as per the contract. The applicant further claims that the respondents, subsequently, cancelled the contract arbitrarily.

4. The applicant claims that in accordance with Clause 25 of the Clauses of Contract, disputes were required to be resolved through the mechanism of arbitration. For facility of reference, Clause 25 is reproduced hereunder:

“Clause 25:- Settlement of Disputes and Arbitration:

Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, drawings and instructions here-in before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the cancellation, termination, completion or abandonment thereof shall be dealt with as mentioned hereinafter:

(i) If the contractor considers any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract, or disputes any drawings, record or decision given in writing by the Engineer-in-Charge or if the Engineer in Charge considers any act or decision of the contractor on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or carrying out of the work, to be unacceptable and is disputed, such party shall promptly within 15 days of the arising of the disputes request the Chief Engineer/ CPM, or where there is no Chief Engineer/CPM, request the Additional Director General/Special Director General, who shall refer the disputes to Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC) within 15 days along with a list of disputes with amounts claimed if any in respect of each such dispute. The Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC) give its decision within a period of 60 days extendable by 30 days by consent of both the parties from the receipt of reference from CE/CPM/ADG/SDG The constitution of Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC)

shall be as indicated in Schedule 'F'. Provided that no party shall be represented before the Dispute Redressal Committee by an advocate/legal counsel etc.

The DRC will submit its decision to the concerned ADG/SDG for acceptance. ADG/ SDG in a time limit of 30 days from receipt of DRC decision will convey acceptance or otherwise on the said decision. If the Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC) fails to give its decision within the aforesaid period or the ADG/SDG fails to give his decision in the aforesaid time limit or any party is dissatisfied with the decision of Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC)/ ADG/SDG the neither party may within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the decision of Dispute Redressal Committee (DRC)/ADG/ SDG or on expiry of aforesaid the time limit