JUDGMENT
Mahesh Chandra, J.
(1) By this order I propose to dispose of O.M.P. No. I of 1987 filed under Sections 5, 11, 12 and 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 with request that this court may grant leave to revoke the authority of respondent No. 2 and to remove respondent No. 2, the nominated arbitrator and appoint some other persons as the arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims of the petitioner Notice of this O.M.P. was served upon the respondent and on 23rd March, 1987 Ms.Nandita Chandra Advocate appeared for the respondent No. 1 and sought time to file reply. But since then nobody has appeared for respondent No. 1 nor has any reply been filed and in consequence ex parte proceedings were ordered against respondent No. 1 and ex parte evidence was ordered to be recorded on affidavits vide orders dated 6th November, 198 7. No application for setting aside ex parte order has been filed. In support of the petition affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. After the affidavit was filed I thought it proper to issue notice to the arbitrator Shri V.D.Anand respondent No. 2 and in consequence the said arbitrator Shri V.D. Anand appeared before me on 11th November, 1987 and he made the following statement : “I was appointed arbitrator in this matter in my capacity as Chief Engineer, Central Electricity Authority. I nave since retired from service^ and as such I do not hold the position of Chief Engineer, Central Electricity Authority and I am I no longer competent to proceed with the arbitration in the matter. In view thereof, formal order for my removal as arbitrator may be passed. I have not recorded any proceedings worth the name and such I have nothing to submit to the court by way of arbitration proceedings.”
(2) In view of the statement of Shri V.D. Anand, I see no reason to disallow the application Even otherwise according to the contention of the petitioner an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 18.7.1984 for the erection of 66 Kv D/E Tower Line in and around Delhi and the value the work was Rs. 28,23,8l0.00 and the petitioner continued with the work promptly and in right earnest in view of the sizeable work required to be completed within the stipulated period. However, the petitioner was prevented from completing the work within the stipulated time due to several delays, defaults and breaches of contract committed yb 202 respondent No. 1. In the petition the petitioner has further submitted that there was undue delay in handing over the site, free from all obstructions, to enable the petitioner in carrying on the work entrusted to him and further respondent No. I even failed to provide to the petitioner the right of way, and during this period labour had to be kept idle. It has further similarly been submitted that respondent No. 1 committed other delays in communicating decisions timely is regard to survey, locations, bearing capacities of soil and profiles etc and the result was that the petitioner was forced to execute the work much beyond the original agreement period resulting in heavy losses to him due to extra overhead expenditure not contemplated at the time of entering into the agreement. It is similarly stated that in the course of execution of the works, several disputes and differences arose between the parties to the agreement and in consequence the petitioner sent a letter dated 24.8.1985 to respondent No. 1 requesting him to arrange payments together with compensation amounting to Rs. 1.55 crores and in reply thereto respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner through the letter dated 9.1.1986 to divide the claim amounts for the periods from 9.1.1981 to 15.9.1983 and from 15.9.1983 to 31.3.1985 and the petitioner through his letter dated 14.2.1986 complied with the said request and requested the respondent No. I to pay the amounts and vide letter dated 16.2.1986 the petitioner further informed the respondent No. 1 that in case the amount is not paid, matter would have to be settled through arbitration as per clauses of the contract. The respondent No. 1 however did not give any reply to the letter and addressed another letter on 8.3.1986. It was finally in May, 1986 that respondent No. 1 intimated that they were not agreeable to any of the persons suggested by the petitioner as the sole arbitrator vide letter dated 21.5.1986 the respondent No. 1 suggested the name of Shri P. D.Sharma, Chief Engineer (Planning) as Sole arbitrator but later on vide letter dated 28.8.1986 appointed Shri V.D. Anand Chief Engineer (PSD) Central Electricity, respondent No. 2 as the sole arbitrator, In consequence the petitioner agreed to the said appointment but the arbitrator had not till the date of filing this petition issued any notice to the parties to file their respective pleadings and respondent No. 2 has failed to use all reasonable dispatch in entering upon and proceeding with the reference and making an award and as such, has made himself liable to be removed as sole arbitrator and consequently the petitioner submits that it is just and necessary that respondent No. 2 be removed and a new arbitrator is appointed by this court. In support of this petition the petitioner has filed Annexures P 1 to P 6 apart from the affidavit of Shri K.P. Reddiah, partner of the petitioner which is duly sworn and which corroborates the allegations contained in the petition. In view. of this position as well, the appointment of arbitrator Shri V.D. Anand has to be revoked and a fresh arbitrator has become necessary to be appointed. Consequently while allowing this petition, it is directed that the appointment of Shri V.D. Anand, Sole Arbitrator- is revoked forthwith and instead a new arbitrator is required to be appointed. Accordingly, I appoint Shri Kishan Chand, Retired Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission, 30, defense Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 as sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising between the parties. His fee is tentatively fixed at Rs. 10,000.00 keeping in view the amount and the labour involved in the suit. The fee would be payable in the first instance by the petitioner direct to the named arbitrator and on receipt of such fee the arbitrator would enter upon reference and to proceed with the matter. Notice be issued to the new arbitrator of this order.