4. It appears that there were some disputes between the petitioner and respondentRailway authorities which were referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award on 13.02.2012 which was, however, challenged by the petitioners by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, which was partly allowed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1 on 20.05.2014 and as far as the claim Nos.2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were concerned, these were set aside for which a new arbitrator was required to be appointed, but it appears that the petitioners, while seeking appointment of an arbitrator in respect of the aforesaid claims, included some other claims because of which this Court in Arb. P. No.1/2019 vide order dated 10.02.2020 directed the petitioners to make an application for appointment of arbitrator only in respect of the claims which were set aside by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati vide order dated 20.05.2014. Thereafter, on an application made by the petitioners, a new arbitrator was appointed to decide the remaining claims. However, after appointment of the new arbitrator, the petitioners raised an objection as regards his qualification to act as an arbitrator as he was a serving employee of the Railways as, according to the petitioners, the same was not permissible in terms of the amended Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which prohibits any employee of either of the parties to act as an arbitrator. In terms of the said objection raised by the petitioners, the newly appointed arbitrator recused himself from the proceeding vide letter dated 14.12.2020. Thus, the mandate of the arbitrator stood terminated with the withdrawal of the arbitrator from the
