CHIEF ENGINEER B AND R JAIPUR Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the Chief Engineer, Buildings and Roads, Jaipur, and another against the order of the District Judge of Ganganagar on an application made by Harbans Singh, opposite party, under sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case may be briefly narrated. Some construction work was to be done in Ganganagar, and Harbans Singh, apposite party, was appointed contractor for that purpose. In November, 1947, he entered into an agreement with the Chief Engineer of the former State of Bikaner. That agreement lays down the terms on which Harbans Singh had accepted the contract and one of the terms (clause 15) was that - "chief Engineer shall be the sole arbitrator and judge in case of dispute between me and the Execution Engineer with reference to the quality or measurements of work executed or rate of progress of the construction and meaning of plans, working drawing sections and specifications and above conditions or any other thing connected with this contract, and his decision shall be conclusive and binding. " It is said that disputes arose about this work and were referred to the arbitration of the Chief Engineer, and that officer gave an award in October, 1949. That award is being contested in the courts and is a separate matter. Harbans Singh wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer on the 17th of June, 1950, in which he said that there was a dispute between him and the Executive Engineer, and referred that dispute to the arbitration of the Chief Engineer. He also made it clear in that letter that that dispute was besides the dispute which had been submitted to the Chief Engineer earlier, and on which the Chief Engineer had given his award in October, 1949 Later, Harbans Singh gave a notice, on the 24th of July, 1950, to the Chief Engineer. In this he said that as the Chief Engineer had not entered upon arbitration within one month of the 17th June, 1950 he was giving fifteen days' notice to him as well as to the Executive Engineer to concur in the appointment of the new arbitrator. On the 28th July, 1950, the Chief Engineer sent a reply to the effect that the claims were still under examination, and that it would take time as the case was old and complicated and new officers were handling it. THEreafter, Harbans Singh applied, on the 7th of February, 1951, under sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act, to the court alleging that the arbitrator had neglected to work, and therefore a new arbitrator should be appointed in his place.