Arb.P. 5/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D. BISWAS, CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTG.) Heard Mr Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr R. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. During the course of argument, Mr Saha submitted that the respondent aut hority failed to act in terms of the agreement and appoint an Arbitrator in resp onse to the notice issued by the petitioner on 14.2.05. The reply to the notice was issued by the authority concerned on 15.5.05 but till then no appointment wa s made. In the meantime, the present proceedings was initiated and only thereaft er, the respondent authority vide letter dated 3.6.05 informed that Sri Anil Kum ar, Chief Engineer, Project Setuk has been appointed as the sole Arbitrator. Mr Saha further submitted that the right of the respondent authority to appoint dep artmental arbitrator flows from the contract. Since the respondent authority fai led to appoint the arbitrator within the stipulated period, it cannot later on e nforce its rights of appointment. Mr Saha, learned counsel argued that it is no w for the court to appoint a suitable arbitrator. Mr Saha further suggested that they would accept any retired Judge of the High Court as the sole arbitrator in place of Sri Anil Kumar who is an officer serving under the respondent authorit y. 3. Mr Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has no ob jection if any retired Judge is appointed to arbitrate into the matter. 4. In view of aforesaid submission and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, Justice P.G.Agarwal, retired Judge of this Court is appointed a s the sole Arbitrator. 5. The parties shall take necessary follow up action in terms of the above order. 6. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.