P. N Nag ( 1 ) BY this petition under Sections 33. 8 and 20 (4) ofthe Arbitration Act. 1940, the petitioner has prayed for an appointment ofany person as an arbitrator in contract dated 27-3-1973 in accordance withlaw to adjudicate the disputes as specified in paragraph 7 (a) and (b) of thispetition. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts relating to the filing of this petition are that thepetitioner Uttam Wires and Machines (P) Ltd. had filed a Suit No. 1489-Aof 1987 relating to the present contract dated 27-3-1973. Vide order dated19-7-1989 this Court disposed of the suit directing the respondents to file thearbitration agreement and appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the law. The decision in the said suit No 1489-A/87 has been reported in AIR 1990del. 72 State of Rajasthan filed an appeal (FAO (OS) 227/89) against theaforesaid decision dated 19-7-1989 which wai also dismissed vide Divisionbenches order dated 13-1-1992 passed by G. C. Mittal, Chief Justice, end Satpal, J. , with the result, the order dated 19-7-1989 passed in Suit No. 1489-A/87 has attained finality. ( 3 ) IN spite of requests of the petitioner for the appointment of anarbitrator, the respondent has refused to appoint an arbitrator. Even thenotice dated 29-7-1989 issued and served on the respondent by the petitionerfor the appointment of an arbitrator within 30 days, was ignored. ( 4 ) THE stand taken by the respondent in para 11 of the written statement is that under Clause 6 of the agreement, the matter had to be decidedby the Government and it was, in terms, not an arbitration clauses. The Stategovernment, therefore, did not appoint any arbitrator to resolve the allegeddisputes as stated by the plaintiff. In other words, in spite of the orderdated 19-7-1989 passed in Suit No. 1489-A/87 and notice dated 29-7-1989, noaction has been taken by the respondent to appoint an arbitrator and thiscourt, therefore, has every right to appoint any person as an arbitrator. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned here that the above objection was taken bythe respondent in the written statement filed in Suit No. 1489-A/87, whichwas duly considered and rejected by this Court. The refusal by the respondent to appoint an arbitrator in spite of the Court s order is arbitrary. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned here that the above objection was taken bythe respondent in the written statement filed in Suit No. 1489-A/87, whichwas duly considered and rejected by this Court. The refusal by the respondent to appoint an arbitrator in spite of the Court s order is arbitrary. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that a retired Judge of the Delhihigh Court may be appointed as an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes referred to in this petition, particularly para 7 (a) and (b) of this petition. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent. ( 7 ) I have considered the matter. I am of the firm view that sincethe respondent has failed to appoint an arbitrator, in spite of the orderdated 19-7-1989 passed in Suit No. 1489-A/87 and notice dated 29-7-1989,this Court gets jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator, and the respondentshave abdicated their power to appoint an arbitrator. ( 8 ) IN the light of above discussion. I appoint Shri S. N. Sapra, retiredjudge of the Delhi High Court as an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputesenumerated in the petition, particularly in para 7 (a) and (b) of the petitionin accordance with law. The fee of the arbitrator will be decided by thearbitrator himself, which shall be borne by both the parties proportionately,suit stands disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of this case,i make no order as to costs. Arbitrator appointed.