WP(C) 6870/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K Pathak, l earned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the order of ter mination of the contract dated 7.12.2010 issued by the respondent No. 3 on the g round that the said respondent has no authority under the contract between the p arties to issue the order of termination. The said contention, however, has been denied by the respondents in the affidavit filed contending that the contract between the parties permits the Exe cutive Engineer to issue the order of termination of the contract. It has also b een stated that the bank guarantee was a fake one as has been informed to the au thorities of the Bank. Admittedly in the contract entered into between the parties there is a clause fo r arbitration and the petitioner having agreed to such clause for arbitration ha s to approach the authority for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising between them. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority for appointment of the arbitrator by i nvoking the clause as stipulated in the contract. The writ petition stands disposed. No cost.