M/s Kiscon Constructions vs Punjab Mandi Board and others

A.K. Sikri, C.J.—Admittedly, as per the arbitration agreement, contained in Clause 25-A of the conditions of contract entered into between the parties, in the event of disputes and differences arising between the parties, the matter is to be referred to ''sole arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of the circle concerned''. In the instant case, the petitioner did not invoke the arbitration, as per the said clause. On the contrary, vide representation dated 28.04.2011, the petitioner straightway asked the respondents to appoint somebody else as the Arbitrator. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition. The respondents have since appointed the Superintending Engineer as Arbitrator. In case, the petitioner wanted change of Arbitrator, then the procedure was prescribed in Section 11 read with Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Even clause 25-A of the conditions of the contract stipulates a particular procedure, namely, in the event the contractor is not satisfied with the conduct of the arbitration by the Superintending Engineer, he can make a request to the Chief Engineer-in-Charge for change of the Arbitrator.

Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition, as he submits that he will approach the Chief Engineer-in-Charge, in the first instance for change of Arbitrator. The request of the petitioner, within 15 days from today, shall be considered by the Chief Engineer-in-Charge on merits and an order passed thereupon. With these observations, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.