Arb.P. 28/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B. LOKUR The petitioner had entered into a contract with the North East Frontier Railway (Construction) for supply of Grooved Rubber Sole Plate 6 mm thick to RDSO’s Drg. No.T-3711 and specn 6mm thick GRSP (Provisional 1997 with latest alteration if any. It appears that during the course of execution of the contract an inspection wa s carried out in the premises of the petitioner and the respondents came to the conclusion that the goods manufactured were sub-standard. Accordingly, the petit ioner was required to stop further production and the balance quantities were th en awarded to some other party at the risk and cost of the petitioner. According to the petitioner the termination of the contract is illegal and the p etitioner is not liable to make any payment to the Railways as a result of their risk purchase. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement and the material portion thereof reads as follows :- 2900. Arbitration a) In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under these conditions or any special conditions of contract, or in connection with this con tract (except as to any matters the decision of which is specially provided for by these of the special conditions) the same shall be referred to the sole arbit ration of the Gazetted Railway Officer appointed to be the arbitrator, by the Ge neral Manager in the case of contracts entered into by the Zonal Railway Board, in the case of contracts entered into by the Railway Board and by the Head of th e Organisation in respect of contracts entered into by the other Organisations u nder the Ministry of Railway. The Gazetted Railway Officer to be appointed as ar bitrator however, will not be one of those who had an opportunity to deal with t he matters to which the contract relates or who in the course of their duties se rvant have expressed views on or any of the matters under dispute or difference. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this c ontract. The petitioner requested the respondents for appointment of an arbitrator by a l etter dated 26-12-2008 but no steps were taken by the respondents in this regard . It is under these circumstances that the present petition was filed by the pet itioner for appointment of an arbitrator. When the matter was listed on 6-11-09 Mr J Singh, learned counsel accepted notic e on behalf of the respondents and sought time to file a reply. Thereafter, furt her time was taken on 22-1-2000 and eventually on 23-7-2010 a final opportunity was given to the respondents to file a reply affidavit. Till today no reply affi davit has been filed by the respondents. Under the circumstances, since a dispute has arisen between the parties with reg ard to the validity of the termination of the contract and the amount demanded f rom the petitioner by way of risk purchase and the refusal of the respondents to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the agreement entered into by the parties the re is no option but to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between t he parties. Under the circumstances I appoint Justice PG Agarwal, a retired Judge of this Co urt, as the sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties. The Registrar General of this court will send a copy of this order to Justice PG Agarwal so that he can enter upon the reference as soon as possible. The arbitration petition stands disposed of.