M/S Brightway Contractor And Developers-Dinesh Construction Co. vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Held

The Court directed the parties to follow a specific procedure for the appointment of an Adjudicator. It was held that the processing fee of Rs.59,000/- for the Institute of Engineers is to be deposited in equal shares by both the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner was directed to deposit its share within a fortnight from the date of the order. Upon the petitioner's deposit, respondent No.2 was then directed to deposit the remaining balance amount within another fortnight. Once the entire fee was deposited, the President of the Institute of Engineers was directed to appoint an Adjudicator in accordance with the arbitration clause of the contract within four weeks of the full deposit. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Brightway Contractors & Developers - Dinesh Construction Co., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint an Adjudicator as per Clause 23 of their contract agreement dated 21.05.2014. The Punjab Heritage and Tourism Promotion Board (PHTPB), respondent No.2, informed through an email dated 31.07.2024 that a one-time processing fee of Rs.59,000/- (including Rs.50,000/- for claims up to Rs.10 crores and GST) is payable to the Institute of Engineers. The petitioner's counsel stated that this fee is to be shared equally by both parties and that the petitioner would deposit its share within two weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are bound to appoint an Adjudicator as per Clause 23 of the contract agreement dated 21.05.2014, and if so, what is the procedure for such appointment? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents are obligated to appoint an Adjudicator as per the contract. They further submitted that the processing fee for the appointment of the Adjudicator, as communicated by the Institute of Engineers, is to be borne equally by both parties. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit its share of the fee promptly. Respondents' Contention: Respondent No.2, the PHTPB, through its counsel, presented the information regarding the processing fee required for the appointment of an Adjudicator, as communicated by the Institute of Engineers. They did not dispute the contractual obligation to appoint an Adjudicator but focused on the procedural requirement of fee deposit.