1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Information Technology, Government of Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi 834004 2. Jharkhand Agency for Promotion of Information Technology through its Chief Executive Officer, having his office at Ground Floor, Engineer's HostelI, Near Golchakkar, Dhurwa, Ranchi P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Jharkhand, 834004 3. The Chairman, State Dispute Resolution Committee, JharNet, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Department of Information Technology, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, 834004 ... ... Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate 9/07.11.2019 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Lamba, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 3. This application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents arising out of contract dated 25.10.2005 which was executed between the parties for implementation of Jharkhand State Wide Area Network ('Jhar 2 Net') Project proposed by the Government of Jharkhand. 4. The Contract dated 25.10.2005 has been annexed as annexure1 to the main petition. The petitioner offered to the Respondents for Partial Acceptance Testing and on 15.11.2006 the "Jhar Net" service was inaugurated and on 31.07.2009 final acceptance certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner with effect from 01.08.2009. Dispute arose between the parties mainly regarding payment of difference between Partial Acceptance Test (PAT) and Final Acceptance Test (FAT) (herein after referred to as PATFAT Gap). State Dispute Resolution Committee was constituted on 20.06.2013. On 12.02.2014, the petitioner made representations for releasing the outstanding payment due to the petitioner under the aforesaid contract. On 28.02.2014, the Respondents conducted the Second State Dispute Resolution Committee Meeting in which the petitioner was not present and it was unilaterally decided to pay Rs. 5.97 Crores and odd to the petitioner. Thereafter on 27.03.2015, the Respondents paid an amount of Rs. 5.91 Crores and odd to the petitioner. The petitioner vide its letter dated 21.08.2015 submitted that the petitioner had claimed Rs. 56.57 Crores for PATFAT Gap period with all the justifications, but the petitioner received only Rs. 5.91 Crores and the petitioner requested the Respondents to release the aforesaid balance payment. It is the specific case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner continued making several representations to the Respondents including its letter dated 09.03.2017, 16.06.2017 & 06.10.2018 demanding for making the payment of the balance amount, but the Respondents for some or the other excuse never paid the said outstanding amount. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to paragraph 27 of the petition submits that it is evident from the aforesaid facts that the petitioner made several efforts to amicably settle the dispute wit