An arbitrator's mandate can be terminated when they fail to act without undue delay; new appointments must ensure impartiality as per updated legal standards.

1. By way of instant application filed under S.14 and S.15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act"), a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner, to terminate the mandate of the Arbitrator and appoint independent and impartial Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute inter - se parties.

2. Despite repeated opportunities, respondents have failed to file reply to the petition. Vide order dated 10.7.2018, this Court while granting two weeks' time as last opportunity to file reply, had made it clear that in case reply is not filed on or before the next date of hearing, right to file the same shall be deemed to have been closed and matter shall be decided on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties. Since right to file the reply stands already closed vide order dated 10.7.2018, this Court is unable to accede to the vehement request made by the learned Additional Advocate General, for grant of further time to file reply.

3. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, are that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 for construction of "220KV line (Erection) D/C Sungra - Shimla - Mohali transmission line". Pursuant to aforesaid agreement executed inter se parties, petitioner undertook the works relating to "Erection of 220 KV Transmission line from Sungra to Kunihar, but since certain dispute arose inter - se parties on account of final payment, petitioner vide communication dated12.2.2004, invoked arbitration clause of the agreement and ultimately, matter came to be referred to the Arbitrator vide letter dated 5.5.2004. Arbitrator passed award on 30.7.2007, which was challenged by the petitioner in this Court by way of Arbitration Case No. 22 of 2007. This Court vide judgment dated 22.2.2010, set aside the award and reserved liberty to the petitioner to go for fresh arbitration. Pursuant to aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court, petitioner again requested the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute inter - se parties and accordingly, Chief Engineer (MM), Sh. R.K. Sharma, came to be appointed as an Arbitrator. Above named Arbitrator conducted number of hearings till 2012, whereafter Chairman - cum - Managing Director (HPSEBL) substituted the Arbitrator by appointing the Chief Engineer (Commercial) as sole Arbitrator vide order dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure P1). However, fact remains that newly appointed Arbitrator i.e. Chief Engineer (Commercial) HPSEBL, failed to conduct even single hearing till date without any reason despite repeated requests having been made by the petitioner and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to terminate the mandate of Arbitrator appointed by the respondent vide order dated 15.10.2012.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

5. Careful perusal of Annexure P - 1 annexed with the petition clearly suggests that Chairman - cum - Managing Director (HPSEBL) Shimla, had earlier appointed the Chief Engineer (Commercial) HPSEBL, Shimla, as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims and counter claims of the parties in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, but above named Chief Engineer (MM) was later on substituted by the Chief Engineer (Commercial). Factum with regard to execution of agreement dated 7.1.1984 is not in dispute and similarly, there is no dispute inter - se parties with regard to th