Judgment :- Thomas, J. 1. These two appeals can be disposed of together, as they relate to the same matter. One is against appointment of an arbitrator and the other is against the orders refusing to set aside the award passed by him. 2. There were differences of opinion between a contractor and the appellants in respect of the work assigned to the former pursuant to execution of an agreement dated 29-8-1979. The contract was terminated before completion of the work. The contractor moved the lower court under S.20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') for appointing an arbitrator and also for referring the disputes to arbitration. The court first appointed one Sri. K. Sukumaran Nair (a retired District Judge). But Sri. Sukumaran Nair surrendered the appointment due to some reasons. Since the parties did not agree upon any particular person, the lower court appointed as arbitrator a person who is a retired Chief Engineer. The said appointment is now challenged in one of these appeals. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the arbitrator conducted arbitration proceedings and passed an award. On the application to make the award a rule of court, the court below passed a decree in terms of the award. If the appointment of the arbitrator can be maintained, both appeals are liable to be dismissed. Hence the only point involved is whether the appointment of the arbitrator is bad in law. 4. S.20(4) of the Act confers power on the court to appoint an arbitrator when the parties cannot agree upon the personnel. Here both sides filed separate panel containing different names. As the court is choosing a name from one of the panels to the total exclusion of the other panel, it should appear from the order that the court has applied its mind and made the choice after weighing relevant considerations. It should not be forgotten that appointment of an arbitrator clothes him with all powers to decide the disputes even with a non-speaking award and both parties will be bound by the award in the normal course, unless such award is liable to be set aside on valid grounds. When stakes are so high, the choice made by the court, especially when such choice falls on a person named only by one of the parties must be such as to instill confidence in both sides. When stakes are so high, the choice made by the court, especially when such choice falls on a person named only by one of the parties must be such as to instill confidence in both sides. For that purpose both sides must be heard on the competence, reliability, impartiality and acceptability or otherwise of the personnel contained in the different panels. Arbitration proceeding is another form of settling disputes and when parties agree to have their disputes settled by arbitration, they also agree to avoid ordinary civil courts to adjudicate on the controversy. Thus, the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts is ousted in regard to such disputes. So, when an arbitrator is appointed by court, care must be taken that the personnel so appointed by court is one without partisanship bias or prejudice towards any one of the parties to the dispute. Whether the court took that care, as it chose a person suggested by one of the parties, can be discerned only when there is a reasoned order. 5. In State v. Gangaram Chhapolia (AIR 1982 Orissa 277) one of the parties to a dispute filed a panel of names and the State submitted that any member of the Arbitration Tribunal might be appointed as arbitrator, and the trial court had chosen one from the panel submitted by the contractor. A single judge of the Orissa High Court, while setting aside the appointment, observed that at the stage of adjudging the personnel, it is essential, that both sides must have their say and each party should be given adequate opportunity to convey to the court its views and reaction to the names suggested, Learned Judge pointed out that no reason has been given by the trial court in the order. Another single judge of the same High Court has observed in State v. Paramananda Pradhan (AIR 1982 Orissa 285) as follows: "The court while selecting an arbitrator, should bear in mind that its function is not just of a routine nature to be exercised casually or mechanically. As great stakes are often involved, a correct adjudication is very much dependent while selecting the person, more on his integrity, though no less on his competency. The pros and cons with regard to the suggestions for the appointment of an arbitrator are to be considered before an appointment is made". 6. As great stakes are often involved, a correct adjudication is very much dependent while selecting the person, more on his integrity, though no less on his competency. The pros and cons with regard to the suggestions for the appointment of an arbitrator are to be considered before an appointment is made". 6. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations made by the Orissa High Court. The impugned order in this case is apparently cryptic. It is reproduced as under: "Sri Chief Engineer and former Arbitrator, now working as Chief Engineer on special duty to World Bank, Kunnukuzhy, Trivandrum is appointed as the new arbitrator. Send the terms of reference and the records to the new Arbitrator. The Arbitrator will file the award within 4 months from the date of receipt of records". 7. There is nothing in the order to show that the different views of the parties were either heard or considered. The party who did not suggest the name of the Arbitrator has challenged his appointment. It cannot be said that he submitted to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator without demur. At no stage of the proceedings the appellant had indicated his willingness to accept the said person as arbitrator to decide the disputes. As the learned Sub Judge has not chosen to give any reason whatsoever for selecting the aforesaid person to the exclusion of all others, we are constrained to interfere. The appointment as well as the award passed pursuant to the said appointment are set aside. 8. We heard counsel on both sides as to the choice of the personnel to be appointed as arbitrator. We found names of two retired District Judges in the panel suggested by the first respondent-contractor. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants have no objection if any one of those retired District Judges is appointed as arbitrator. The first respondent-contractor has been willing to accept any one of the persons named in his panel. For the said reasons, we choose Sri. Sankara Ganakan, retired District and Sessions Judge to arbitrate on the disputes. We, therefore, appoint him as Arbitrator to decide the disputes referred to in Para.13 of the plaint. The records will be despatched to the lower court forthwith to enable it to transmit them to the new arbitrator. For the said reasons, we choose Sri. Sankara Ganakan, retired District and Sessions Judge to arbitrate on the disputes. We, therefore, appoint him as Arbitrator to decide the disputes referred to in Para.13 of the plaint. The records will be despatched to the lower court forthwith to enable it to transmit them to the new arbitrator. The arbitrator hereby appointed is directed to file the award within four months from the date of receipt of the order. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.