S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) BY this application under Sec. 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to the Act ), the applicant seeks to appoint an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the applicant and the Respondent Railways. ( 2 ) FROM the averments of the petition, the applicant entered into an Agreement No. 6, dated 17th July, 1980 for carrying out certain maintenance work between PAU to himmaitnagar (excluding Purna and including Himmaitnagar) and the said work was to be carried out during the period from 1-7-1980 to 30-6-1981. It is stated by the applicant that he had successfully completed the work as per the terms of the agreement, But, however, the Respondent- authorities did not settle the claim of the applicant and pay the amount due to him. Therefore, according to the applicant, he had issued a notice dated 20-8-1999 to the general Manager either to settle the matter or to refer the dispute for arbitration. According to the applicant, the said notice was after repeated reminders requesting the authorities to settle the dispute and effect the payment in respect of the execution of the said work. Thereafter, again another notice was issued by the applicant on 20th december 1999 to refer the matter for arbitration. As there was no positive response from the 1st Respondent, who is the competent authority to refer the matter for arbitration, the applicant filed the present Arbitration Application on 30th July 2001 seeking the relief of reference of the matter to an independent arbitrator for adjudication. ( 3 ) A counter has been filed on behalf of the Respondents disputing and denying the allegations made by the applicant. In the counter, the Respondents have admitted the execution of the agreement between the parties as well as the execution of the work. But, however, according to the Respondents the claim made by the applicant is barred by limitation. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that there was no written demand by the applicant seeking the 1st respondent to refer the dispute or differences for arbitration under clauses 63,64 (1) (i) and 64 (1) (ii) of the general Conditions of Contract. In the absence of such written demand, the applicant is not entitled to seek the relief by approaching this Court. It is further contended that there was no written demand by the applicant seeking the 1st respondent to refer the dispute or differences for arbitration under clauses 63,64 (1) (i) and 64 (1) (ii) of the general Conditions of Contract. In the absence of such written demand, the applicant is not entitled to seek the relief by approaching this Court. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, reiterating the contentions, stated that the issue as to the limitation and other aspects including the maintainability of the application should be gone into only by the arbitrator and not by this Court in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd. and also even as per the decisions of this Court in the case of m. Narsimhulu v. Council of Scientific and industrial Research and in the case of D. G. Engg. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Sec bad v. Govt. of india, and hence sought for reference. ( 5 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that the General conditions of Contract, which are applicable to all the contracts, prevail over and therefore, the applicant is entitled to proceed only under those clauses and not de hors the above said clauses, which are binding on the applicant. Therefore, the only relief, which even this Court could grant, is only to direct the 1st respondent to refer the matter and the applicant is not entitled to seek the appointment of an independent arbitrator. ( 6 ) HEARD both sides and considered the material on record, ( 7 ) THE fact that the applicant entered into the agreement with the Respondent railways is not disputed and the performance of the contract is also not in dispute. But what is disputed by the other side is only that it is barred by limitation and also that there was no written demand from the applicant. With reference to the issue of limitation is concerned, it is not for this court to go into and decide and it is only the arbitrator to decide such issue as it requires consideration of factual aspects to arrive at a decision. With reference to the issue of limitation is concerned, it is not for this court to go into and decide and it is only the arbitrator to decide such issue as it requires consideration of factual aspects to arrive at a decision. Insofar as the claim that there was no demand, the applicant filed correspondence, which he had with the respondent-authorities, where there was a reference even by the Respondents informing the applicant that his claim with reference to Agreement No. 6, dated 17-7-1980 was under consideration. When once such is the position, it is not open to the respondent authorities to contend otherwise. In fact a copy of the letter dated 20-12-1999 is filed before this Court as part of the material papers in the present application where there was a clear request by the applicant for reference of the matter to the arbitration. Therefore, the contention that there was no written demand is devoid of merit. ( 8 ) INSOFAR as the contention that the clauses of the General Conditions of contract would prevail and the applicant has to seek reference only to the General manager for appointment of an arbitrator is concerned, this Court considered similar contention and negatived the same, holding that those clauses are not binding on this court, when the Respondent authorities were requested to refer the matter for arbitration in terms of the General conditions of Contract and when such request was not acceded to and when the applicant approaches this Court under sec. 11 of the Act, it is not open to the respondent authorities to contend that the applicant should go as per the terms of the general Conditions of Contract. ( 9 ) UNDER the above circumstances, the application is allowed and Sri Justice Vaman rao, a Former Judge of this Court is appointed as arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. The arbitration application is accordingly ordered. The arbitrator is at liberty to fix up his remuneration.