JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This is an application u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996. 2. There is no dispute that the contract between the parties contains an arbitration clause as quoted hereunder: 64. Demand for Arbitration: 1. (i) In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or difference on any account, or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to, or if the Railway falls to make a decision within a reasonable time, then and in any such case, save the excepted matters' referred to in Clause 63 of those conditions, the contractor, after, 90 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters, shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration. xx xx xx 3. Arbitration-(a)(i) A sole Arbitrator who shall be the General Manager or a Gazette Railway Officer nominated by him in that behalf in cases where the claim in question is below Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) and in cases where the issues involved are not of a complicated nature, the General Manager shall be the Sole Judge to decide whether or not the issues involved are of a complicated nature. 3. (a)(ii) Two Arbitrators who shall be Gazette Railway Officers of equal status to be appointed in the manner laid in Clause 64 (3)(b) for all claims of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) and above, and for all claims irrespective of the amount or value of such claims if the issues involved are of a complicated nature. The General Manager shall be the sole judge to decide whether the issues involved are of a complicated nature or not. In the event of the two Arbitrators being divided in their opinions, the matter under disputes will be referred to an Umpire to be appointed in the manner laid down in Clause 3(b) for his decision. 3. The Petitioner claims that after making various demands he had issued notice as per Annexure-12 to the Divisional Railway Manager (Engineering). South Eastern Railway, Samabalpur. 3. The Petitioner claims that after making various demands he had issued notice as per Annexure-12 to the Divisional Railway Manager (Engineering). South Eastern Railway, Samabalpur. He has,therefore, submitted that since no arbitrator has been appointed, he has filed this application u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Railways stating that the application filed before this Court is premature inasmuch as the Petitioner had not issued the required notice to the appropriate authority. The counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance particularly, upon Clause 64(3) of the contract. In course of hearing the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that even though a dispute has already arisen, since notice has not been served no arbitrator should be appointed. 4. Having heard the counsels for the parties, I am of the opinion that a dispute has arisen and in normal course an arbitrator is required to be appointed. Since the General Manager is not a party, it is more appropriate if opportunity is given to issue notice to the General Manager in accordance with Clause 64(3) of the contract. Accordingly, I dispose of the petition with the observation that it would be now open to the Petitioner to issue an appropriate notice to the General Manager. South Eastern Railway in accordance with Clause 64(3) of the contract and if the arbitrators are not appointed within a period of thirty days from the date of service of such notice, it would be open to the Petitioner to file a fresh application before this Court. Petition disposed of.