SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, C. J. ( 1 ) WE are of the view that the order appointing arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not a judicial function. It is an administrative one. Being designated by the Honble Chief Justice, the Honble Judge passed an order appointing an arbitrator. We are of the view that no Special Appeal lies against the appointment of an arbitrator. This position has now been settled by the Honble Supreme Court in Ador Samia Put. Ltd. v. Peekay Holdings Ltd. and others, 1999 (4) CCC 67 (SC ). wherein the Honble Supreme court held that "it is now well settled that petition under Article 136 can be for challenging a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. As the learned Chief Justice or his designate under section 11 (6) of the Act acts in administrative capacity as held by this Court in the aforesaid decision, it is obvious that this order is not passed by any Court exercising any judicial function nor it is a tribunal having trappings of a judicial authority. Orders passed by the learned Chief justice under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being of an administrative nature cannot be subjected to any challenge directly under Article 136 of the Constitution of india. " ( 2 ) IN view of dictum of Honble Supreme Court, the Special Appeals fail on merits and are accordingly dismissed. ( 3 ) INTERIM orders, if any, stand vacated. .