Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/2740/2018 on 28 December 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2740 of 2018
Decided on: 28.12.2018 Satinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ….Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr.D.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr.J.K. Verma, Mr.Adarsh K. Sharma, Mr.Ashwani K Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.Ram Lal Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surya Kant, Chief Justice (Oral) The petitioner is a Government Contractor to whom the construction work of Primary Health Centre at Bagthan in Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur was allotted on 20th August, 2007. It appears that as per the bilateral agreement, the petitioner was required to execute the work by 3rd April, 2009, but he could not do so despite extension of time till 16th February, 2010. The petitioner, however, claims that it is the respondents who rescinded the work on 16th February, 2010 and imposed penalty on him even though the circumstances for not completing the work were beyond his control as he had fallen ill and was under medical treatment. The petitioner further claims that he is entitled to be paid Rs.12.50 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the work he has already executed and that a direction be issued towards the aforesaid payment after proper measurement of the work executed by him. A further direction for the release of security amount of Rs.1.00 lakh has also been sought.
2. On our asking, learned Additional Advocate General has produced the original work contract executed between the parties. He, however, submits that the petitioner abandoned the incomplete work way back in 2010 and having violated the terms and conditions of the work contract, is not entitled to any payment. At the same time, it is not in dispute that Clause 25 of the work contract contains a Clause for “Settlement of dispute by arbitration”. It provides that all disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings, quality of work, material used or other claim, right, matter or things whatsoever “arising out of or relating to the contract shall be referred to the adjudication to an Arbitrator to be appointed by Engineer-in-Charge/Chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Public Works”.
3. In our considered view, the petitioner’s claim regarding payment or the objections of the respondents that the petitioner having abandoned the work, is not entitled to any payment or that his claim is now time barred etc. etc. are all questions that can be effectively gone into by the Arbitrator.
4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without expressing any views on merit, with a direction to the Engineer- in-Charge/Chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department to appoint an Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 25 referred to above within a period of four weeks. The Arbitrator shall make an endeavour to decide the claim within a period of three months.
5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ( Surya Kant ), Chief Justice ( Ajay Mohan Goel ), Judge December 28, 2018 ( vt )