IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Case No. 66 of 2014 Date of decision: 22^nd September, 2023 State of Himachal Pradesh & another ...Petitioners/Objectors Versus M/s Gorsi Construction Pvt. Ltd.

..Respondent/Non-Objector Coram u Hon’ble Mr Justicoe Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioners : Mr. R.P.Singh and Mr. Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

For the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Satish Sharma and Ms.

Swati Verma, Advocates.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral)

The present objection petition has been filed against the arbitral award dated 06.06.2014, passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, partly allowing the claim of the respondent (claimant ________________________

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes before the learned Arbitrator). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Arbitrator for convenience). .

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present objection petition are thata work of confstruction of Link Road from Thela to Jaistha Parli Road km 0/0 to km 8/525 (SH: F/C including R/wall and B/Wall, Cross Drainage wire create in dumping site, setting out logo km. Stone and drain) under World Bank Funding Package HP-06-01 was awarded to the claimant/contractor-M/s Gorsi Construction Pvt. Ltd. Village Takoli Post office Pansara, Sub-Tehsil Aut District Mandi, HP. vide Agreement No. 160 by Executive Engineer, Kullu, Division No.1, HPPWD, Kullu letter No.PW/KD-I/AB/Tender/ Award/B.N./2006:18284-92, dated 22.11.2006, for a sum of ₹2,55,23,768/-. The work was to be completed within 12 months from the date of its commencement. The claimant asserted that he had started the work on 28^thDecember, 2006 by deploying sufficient labour and machinery. However, work could not be done due to agitation by the local public and Pardhan Mahila Mandal Bah. The work was resumed on 01.01.2007, after persuading them. This fact was brought to the notice of the department vide letter dated 06.01.2007. The claimant also requested the department to depute some responsible. officials so that there might not be any hindrance in the execution of the work. The work was stopped by the Forest Department on 31.01.2007 at RD 0/250. An intimation was given to the department vide letter dated 01.02.2007. The claimant informed the department that labour rand machinery were lying idle on the site and he would be demanding idle charges for labour and machinery deployed at the site, amounting to ₹ 26,400/- per day, as per clause 43.1a w.e.f. 31.01.2007 till the clear site was provided to him. N o response was received and the claimant again wrote a letter dated 19.02.2007. The department directed the claimant to shift the machinery vide letter dated 22.02.2007, till the receipt of Hthe clearance from the Forest Department. The letter was received by the claimant on 27^th February 2007 and he shifted the labour and machinery on 2^nd March 2007, after intimating the department vide a letter dated 5^thMarch 2007. Sh. Fateh Chand filed a Civil Suit claiming damage of ₹ 1,50,000/- for his house and cowshed. These damages occurred because no dumping site was proposed in the first kilometer. The Department told the claimant in October, 2007 that no objection was received from the Forest Department and work could be restarted. The contractor deployed labour and machinery on 5^th November, 2007 but the work was stopped on 11^th March 2008 on the plea that there was a complete ban on green felling. The claimant intimated the respondent/department vide letter dated 12^th March, 2008 and 5^th May, 2008. He requested perm ission to shift the machinery but did not receive any intrimation. The claimant sent a final notice to the Executive Engineer on 9^th May, 2008. He wrote a letter to the department on 3^rd June, 2008 to settle the claim by 5^th June, 2008. He also told the department that he would s