R.L. Anand, J.@mdashThis is a Civil Revision and has been-directed against the order dated 10.8.2000 passed by the Court of Additional
District Judge, Patiala who rejected the prayer of the petitioner for the removal of Shri Ashok Sood, the Arbitrator, who was nominated by the
Chief Engineer S, Sarabjit Singh, for the reasons given in para No. 9 of the impugned order, which is reproduced as under:-
After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant M/s Bhullar
Construction Company. Admittedly, Shri Sarab- jit Singh, Superintending Engineer was appointed as Sole arbitrator by the Chief Engineer on
6.10.1998 and the statements of the claims were filed on 11.12.1998 by the appellant and the respondents filed the counter claims on 5.5.1999
and after filing of the rejoinder, the proceedings wore adjourned for 9.6.1999. After 9.6.1999, no proceedings were held. The present petition
was tiled 3.1.2000 and Shri Sarabjit Singh, Superintending Engineer, appointed Arbitrator was promoted and thereafter a panel of Arbitrators as
per the terms and conditions was submitted and as per clause 67 ofthe Agreement. Ihe Arbitrator has to be appointed from amongst the officers of
the rank of serving Superintending Engineers of the Department and Shri Ashok Sood, Superintending Engineer has been appointed as Arbitrator.
There are no allegations of misconduct on the part of Ihe previous Arbitrator and the new Arbitrator has been appointed as per the terms and
conditions of the agreement between the parties. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that it is for the Court to appoint the Arbi-
irator, is without any basis and the Court has to appoint the Arbitrator once the department fails to appoint the named Arbitrator. In the authority
relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant M/s, Deepak Galvanizing and Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of India (supra), it was
held that once the department fails to appoint the named Arbitrator, then it loses right to appoint the named arbitrator and contractor is enti-tled to
move the Court for appointing a new Arbitrator, but in this case, the department has already appointed the named Arbitrator and as such this
authority is not applicable. In case of Satya Kailashchandra Sahu and others v. M/s Vidhar-bha Distillers and others (supra) the Arbitrator refused
to act as Arbitrator and there was no agreement for appointing another Arbitrator and in that case it was held that the Chief Justice is required to
take necessary measures for appointment of Arbitrator but this authority is not again applicable because in the present case, the appointed
arbitrator was promoted as Chief Engineer and as such he could not continue with the arbitration proceedings and the new Arbitrator Shri Ashok
Sood has been appoinled as per the terms and conditions of Clause 67 of the agreement. The present application was filed by the applicant M/s
Bhullar Construction Company, under Sections 14 read with Section 15 of the Act for termination of the mandate of the sole Arbilrator Shri
Sarabj it Singh, respondent No. 3 and for his replacement by another impartial and independent sole arbitrator and for staying the proceedings
before the sole arbitrator Shri Sarvjeet Singh respondent. Thus, the mandate of the respondent No. 3 has been automatically terminated with his
promotion and on the appointment of a new Arbitrator as well as the prayer for staying the proceedings before him also become infructuous as he
is no more acting as Arbitrator.
2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Shri Sarabjit Singh, when he was serving as Superintending Eingineer was nominated as an
Arbitrator by the Chief Engineer in terms of Clause 67 of the agreement which lays down that the appointment of the Arbitrator shall be from
amongst the officers of the rank ofthe serving Superintending Engineers of the Department. The petitioner filed an application u/s 14 of the
Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 for the removal of the Arbitrator Shri Sarabjit Singh on the plea that he has not taken sufficient steps in
the proceedings. Shri Sarabjit Singh filed reply annexure P-3 and he stated that he was very busy and hence was nol in a position to perform the
duty of Arbitrator in the said matter. In the meanwhile Shri Sarabjit Singh the sole Arbitrator was promoted as Chief Engineer. In the capacity of a
Chief Engineer he nominated Shri Ashok Sood, as Arbitrator in his place in terms of Clause 67 of the agreement. The petitioner made a prayer that
this appointment of Shri Ashok Soods, as an Arbitrator, by Sarabjit Singh, is illegal and against the provisions of law. This prayer did not find
favour with the Court. Hence the present revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of this case.
4. The grouse of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold; firstly, that Shri Sarabjit Singh could not npminate Shri Ashok Sood and
secondly when the petition u/s 14 ofthe Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, is pending before the Civil Court, any action on the part ofthe
Chief Engineer for the appointment of Arbitrator is illegal.
5. I do not subscribe to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the petition u/s 14 of the Arbitration and
Reconciliation Act, itself had become infructuous with the promotion of Superintending Engineering to the Post of Chief Engineer (S. Sarabjit
Singh). The main grouse of the petitioner, rather from the very beginning was that Shri Sarabjit Singh should be removed from conducting the
arbitration proceedings because he was not taking any interest in the proceedings. Sarabjit Singh could not conduct the proceedings as he was
very busy. In the meanwhile, Sarabjit Singh became Chief Engineer. As per clause 67, the gap which was created by the promotion of Sarabjit
Singh, as Chief Engineer, has to be filled according to the agreement itself which lays down that Arbitrator is to be appointed from the officers of
the rank of serving Superintending Engineers by the Department.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with the appointment ofthe Shri Ashok Sood, as an Arbitrator, his client cannot expect
justice as he is a man ofthe Department. Moreover, he is serving under S. Sarabjit Singh and in these circumstances, some independent person
should be appointed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The sanctity to the arbitration clause is to be
given unless the things are to the contrary on the face of it. As per the arbitration clause 67, the appointment of the Arbitrator is supposed to be
made from amongst the officers of the rank of serving Superintending Engineers. Admittedly, Shri Ashok Sood is a serving Superintending
Engineer. Therefore, his appointment has rightly been made by Shri Sarabjit Singh in the capacity and powers of Chief Engineer. The learned
counsel for the petitioner also cited Pratima Sarkar Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and Others, . These authorities are not applicable to the facts of
the case in hand.
7. It may be clarified that if any claim of the petitioner is pending before the Arbitrator, that shall also be adjudicated by him after giving notice to
the Department according to the rules and law.
8. Petition dismissed.