Sat Pal, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by M/s. Ahluwalia Contracts (India)Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor" under Section 20 of the Arbitrationact, 1940 and in this petition it has been prayed that M/s. I. F. S. Co-operative Grouphousing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Society ), be directed to file theagreement and refer the dispute between the parties to arbitration. Notice of thepetition was sent to the Society and in the reply filed on behalf of the Society, itwas admitted that there is Suit No. 781 /92. A dispute between the parties but itis alleged that there is nogreement enforceable by law between the parties inrespect of the submission of such a dispute to arbitration. ( 2 ) MR. Midha, the leared Counsel appearing on behalf of the Contractor drewmy attention to the arbitration clause and submitted that since the Society hasaornitted the fact of the existence of the dispute between the parties, the disputesmentioned in the petition should be referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitra-tion clause. Dealing with the submissions made in the reply filed on behalf of thesociety that there was no agreement enforceable by law between the parties forreferring the dispute to arbitration, the leared Counsel submitted that the Societycannot refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of the law laid down by thesupreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sanyal, AIR 1979 SC 1457 and bya Full Bench of this Court in Veil Prukash Mithal v. Union of India, AIR 1984 Delhi 325. ( 3 ) DR. Sidhu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Society,however, submitted that in the present case as per the terms of the arbitrationclause one of the parties to the contract ;. (, . the Society has the caption to make areference to the arbitration or not to make a reference and if the Society opts not tomake a reference, then the dispute cannot be rl-ffm-d to arbitration at all. (, . the Society has the caption to make areference to the arbitration or not to make a reference and if the Society opts not tomake a reference, then the dispute cannot be rl-ffm-d to arbitration at all. Hefurther submitted that in the case of Vcd Prakas i \li!ua (supra) decided by a Fullbench of this Court the option to refer the dispute or not to refer the dispute wasnot with one of the parties to the contract but was with the Chief Engineer and sincethe Chief Engineer was not a party to the contract, the decision in the case of Vcdprukush Mitlilil (supra) was distinguishable from thr facts of the present case. Hefurthersubmittedthaton the same ground the decision of the Supreme Court in thecase of Prafulla Kumar Sanyal (supra) was distinguishable from the facts of thepresent case. In this connection he also referred to a Division Bench judgment ofthis Court in Union of India v. Bharat Engineering Corporation, ILR (1977) II Delhi 57and a decision of this Court in the case of P. C. Aggarwal v. K. N. Khosla and Others,air 1975 Delhi 54 and also referred to Russel on the Law of Arbitration (20thedition ). I may also point out here that the leared Counsel for the Society did notadvance any other reason except mentioned hereinabove to justify refusal of thesociety to refer the disputes. ( 4 ) I have given my thoughful consideration to the submissions made by thelearned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Before dealingwith the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties it will be relevant toreproduce the arbitration clause which reads as under:- "57. ARBITIiation, Except where otherwise provided in the contract allquestions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications,designes, drawing and instructions herein before mentioned and as to thequality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any otherquestion, claim, rig^it, matter or thing whatsoever, in any way arising outof or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates,instructions, orders or those conditions or otherwise concerning theworks or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arisingduring the progress of the work of after the completion or abandonment249thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed bythe Society. It will be no objection to any such appointment that thearbitrator so appointed is an Officer/employee of the Society and that hehad to deal with the matters to which the contract relates and that in thecourse of his duties as such Officer/employee he had expressed views onall or any of the matters in dispute or difference. The arbitrator to whomthe matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office orbeing unable to act for any reason, the Society at the time of such transfer,vacation of office or inability to act, shall appoint another person to act asarbitrator in accordance with the terms of the contract. Such person shallbe entitled to proceed with the reference from the stages at which it wasleft by his predecessor. It is also a term of this contract that no person otherthan a person appointed by the Society should act as arbitrator and, if forany reason thatisnot possible, the matter is not to be referred to arbitrationatall. In all cases where the amount of the claim in dispute is Rs. 50,000. 00 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and above, the arbitrator shall give reasonsfor the award. Subject as aforesaid the provisoins of the Arbitration Act, 1940, or anystatutory modification or re/enactment thereof and the rules made thereunder and for the time; being in force shall apply to the arbitrationproceeding under the clause. It is a term of the contract that the partyinvoking arbitration shall specify the dispute or disputes to be referred toarbitration under this clause together with the amount or amounts claimedin respect of each such dispute. The arbitrator may, from time to time with the consent of the partiesenlarge the time, for making and publishing the awards. " ( 5 ) FROM the arbitration clause mentioned hereinabove the learned Counsel forthe Society has relied on the following portion;- "it is also a term of this contract that no person other than a personappointed by the Society should act as arbitrator and, if for any reason thatis not possible, the matter is not to be referred to arbitration at all. " ( 6 ) THE relevant portion from the arbitration clause which was the subjectmatter before the Full Bench in the case of Ved Prakash (supra) is also reproducedhereinbelow:- "it is also a term of this contract that no person other than a personappointed by such Chief Engineer or the Administrative Head of thec. " ( 6 ) THE relevant portion from the arbitration clause which was the subjectmatter before the Full Bench in the case of Ved Prakash (supra) is also reproducedhereinbelow:- "it is also a term of this contract that no person other than a personappointed by such Chief Engineer or the Administrative Head of thec. P. W. D. , as aforesaid should act as arbitrator and if for any reason thatis not possible, the matter is not to be referred to arbitration at all. " ( 7 ) FROM the arbitration clause in the present case and in the case of Ved Prakash (supra) I do not find any material difference. Whereas in the case of Ved Prakash (supra) the contract was between the Union of India and the Contractor and thechief Engineer, who was the Administrative Head of the Department of the Unionof India, was given the option to refer the dispute to arbitration or not to refer thedisputes to arbitration, in the present case the option has been given to the Societyitself, who is a party to the contract. In my opinion it makes no difference whethersuch an option has been given to one of the parties to the contract or to an officer of one of the parties to the contract. I am, therefore, of the view that the present caseis fully covered by the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ved Prakash (supra)and as such the dispute raised by the petitioner has to be referred to arbitration interms of the arbitration clause. ( 8 ) AS the matter is fully covered by a decision of Full Bench of this Court, thejudgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Society in the cases of Bharatengineering Corporation (supra) and P. C. Aggarwal (supra), which were rendered bydivision Bench of this Court, are of no assistance to the respondent Society. Besides the said judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Society, arenot direct on the point involved in this case. In view of the above discussion the petition is allowed and I direct therespondent Society to refer the disputes mentioned in the petition to arbitration interms of the Arbitration Clause 57 within two months from the date of this order. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.