Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Though after invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court to seek appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act, the respondents are precluded from appointing an Arbitrator, but Clause 25(A) of the agreement contemplates that the serving Superintending Engineer of the HUDA, shall be the Arbitrator. In terms of sub-clause (8) of Section 11 of the Act, the Arbitrator has to be appointed with due regard to the terms of the agreement. In terms of the agreement, the serving Superintending Engineer, HUDA, has to be appointed an Arbitrator. Therefore, even if the respondents have appointed an Arbitrator after invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court, but such appointment of Arbitrator is in terms of the agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any specific prejudice on the part of the serving Superintending Engineer, HUDA, who has been appointed as an Arbitrator, except that the Arbitrator appointed is an Official of the respondent-Department. The said fact is not sufficient to preclude the respondents from appointing an Arbitrator.
