G. C. Jain ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act for appointing an arbitrator. ( 2 ) THE petitioner M/s. M. N. Arora Engineers and Contractors entered into an agreement relating to the work of constructions of 120 Nos. Cat. Ill Du s 90 Nos. Cat. I Du s 150. Nos. Scooter Garrage, Building work including internal water supply and Sanitary installations etc. , complete in sector-I Pkt-A, Grd. Ill with Delhi Development Authority. Certain disputes arose between the parties and an application was made by the petitioner-contractor in this court in suit No. 1804-A of 1986 and Shri Sharat Chandra Gupta who was, at that time Chief Engineer (Design and Training) with the Delhi Development Authority, was appointed as Arbitrator. The contention sought to be raised is that Shri Sharat Chandra Gupta has since been transferred and therefore another arbitrator was liable to be appointed in terms of clause-25. This application was opposed and the following issues were framed : 1. Has the Arbitrator Mr. S. C. Gupta, incurred any disqualification as alleged by the petitioner ? 2. If the answer to Issue No. 1 is in the affirmative can this Court appoint an Arbitrator ? 3. Relief. ( 3 ) ISSUE No. 1 : The relevant part of clause-25 of the agreement reads as under : "the arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason, such Engineer Member Delhi Development Authority as aforesaid at the time of such transfer, vacation of office or inability to act shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the contract. "a perusal of this clause shows that Engineer Member is required to appoint another person to act as an arbitrator in the case the arbitrator already appointed, inter-alia, is transferred. It is not disputed that Shri Sharat Chandra Gupta has since been transferred back to his original department i. e. , CPWD. Therefore Shri S. C. Gupta, has incurred disqualification in terms of clause 25 and a new arbitrator was liable to be appointed. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly. ( 4 ) ISSUE No. 2 : Under clause 25 it is the Engineer Member who has to appoint an arbitrator. Therefore Shri S. C. Gupta, has incurred disqualification in terms of clause 25 and a new arbitrator was liable to be appointed. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly. ( 4 ) ISSUE No. 2 : Under clause 25 it is the Engineer Member who has to appoint an arbitrator. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the contentions of the petitioner has been commented upon and therefore the Engineer Member was biased and therefore the arbitrator should be appointed by the Court. I do not agree with this contention. There is nothing to show that reply has been filed on behalf of the Engineer Member. It is signed by the Secretary of the D. D. A. There is nothing to show that she has any authority to sign and submit a reply on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Therefore the Engineer Member was entitled to appoint another arbitrator. I accordingly decide the issue. ( 5 ) IN view of my findings above I direct the Engineer Member to appoint another arbitrator in place of Sh. S. C. Gupta within three months from today. No order as to costs.