1.The Executive Engineer, Buildings and Roads (South) Division, Public Works Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Circle I, Public Works Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. 3.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents as setout in this petition and to direct the respondents to pay the cost of this petition. For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel For Respondents : Mr.J.Kumaran Government Advocate (Puducherry) ORDER This Application is filed praying for the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes between the petitioner and the respondents arising from out of Agreement dated 23.02.2007 as well as for costs of this petition. 2. Pursuant to a tender notification dated 18.08.2006 issued by the first respondent in which the petitioner participated, the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder and its tender accepted on 18.08.2006. A work order was issued to the petitioner on 05.01.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondents entered into Agreement dated 23.02.2007 for the work of 'Construction of, High Level Bridge across Penniyar River at Suriyan Kuppam in Bahour Commune, Puducherry'. 3. The work commenced on 04.02.2007, and the period of completion was 15 months i.e., on 03.05.2008. However, the work was ultimately completed, according to Mr.Sengottuvel, learned counsel for the petitioner only on 03.08.2011 after periodical extensions granted by the respondents. The respondents, in counter, state that the work was completed on 31.03.2011. As such, the factum of delay is not disputed though the case of the petitioner is that the delay was occasioned by factors not attributable to it. This is disputed by the respondent who states that the delay was entirely attributable to slow progress on the part of the petitioner. 4. Disputes thus arose between the parties and the petitioner sent a series of requests for settlement of the amounts due and payable to it. The Security Deposit is itself stated to have been returned by the respondents only in March, 2016. The claim for pending payments was reiterated by the petitioner by letters dated 12.04.2016 and 26.12.2016 and the petitioner specifically indicates resort to the process of arbitration in the event the claims were kept outstanding by the respondent, in both communications. 5. In response, the petitioner was called for a discussion on 19.01.2017. After discussions, the first respondent, vide letter dated 10.02.2017, proceeds to reject the claim on the ground that the same has not been raised within the time frame stipulated in the contract. 6. The petitioner, on 28.02.2017 addresses a letter to the 3rd respondent seeking intervention in the matter for settlement of the dispute. Two reminders were issued that saw no response from the respondent. Thus, on 25.04.2017, the petitioner calls upon the third respondent to appoint an Arbitrator for the resolution of disputes. Though the communication has been duly received by the respondent and despite a reminder dated 07.06.2017, there has been no response till date. 7. Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a dispute has arisen as between the parties in the settlement of claims and clause 25 (ii) of agreement dated 23.02.2007 provides for reference of such disputes to an Arbitrator for resolution. He thus seeks the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 8. Mr.Kumaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, objects to the prayer arguing that the final bill submitted by the petitioner was prechecked and passed on 25.11.2015 and the same was intimated to and received by the petitioner on 21.12.2015. According to Mr.Kumaran, the period for reference to Arbitration was only 120 days from the date of receipt of intimation of final bill from the EngineerinChief and the time provided had expired as early as on 23.03.2016. The present petition was thus, according to him, barred by limitation. 9. He would point out that it was only in the reference to dispute dated 25.04.2017, that t