NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ARBR No. 12 of 2023 Gilcon Project Service Limited J.V. Scapes Associates, Having Its Office At A-35, Manipuram Colony, Char Imli, Bhopal -462016 ---- Petitioner Versus

1. Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Engineer - Mukhya Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna - (Member) Old Zila Panchayat Building, Collectorate Parisar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Superintending Engineer- Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Pariyojana Mandal-1, Jagdalpur (District Bastar)

4. Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Dvelopment, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

26/02/2024

1. Heard Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicant for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short,the Act of 1996)

read with paragraph 2 and 3(2) of the Scheme for appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court, 2002 (“the 2002 scheme”).

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite he has given an application to the Secretary of the Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Government of Chhattisagh on 12.12.2022 for appointment of sole arbitrator as per Clause 10 (Settlement of dispute clause) and the provisions of the Act of 1996 as Hon’ble Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Abhikaram Raipur vide order dated 08.09.2022 has held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute arisen between the parties as the work of providing Consultancy is not a Work Contract, but till date neither any reply has been given by them nor any sole arbitrator has been appointed. Hence, he has filed the instant application for appointment of the sole Arbitrator.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the aforesaid submission and submits that the present application is not maintainable as the petitioner has given notice to the Secretary of the Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Government of Chhattisagh, whereas the agreement (Ex.P-1) is between the petitioner and the Chief Engineer of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna and the terminology of the Section 11 says that the notice will go the other party of the agreement and in the instant case the other party of the agreement is Chief Engineer of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna.

5. Section 11 of the Act of 1996 reads as follows :

“5. Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (2), in an arbitration with a sole arbitrator, if the parties fail to agree on the arbitrator within thirty days from receipt of a request by one party from the other party to so agree the appointment shall be made on an application of the party in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (4)”

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that the applicant has not given any notice for appointment of Arbitrator to other party of the agreement i.e. Chief Engineer of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna and has given notice to the Secretary of the Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Government of Chhattisagh, the present application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 is not maintainable.

7. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach the Chief Engineer of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna for redressal of his grievance, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha)

Chief Justice Chandra