B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE decision in Arbitration Application no. 62 of 2002 is challenged in this writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 ( the Act for brevity) praying to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the claims raised by the petitioner. The claim itself arises out of the agreement entered by and between the petitioner and respondents dated 27-3-1997. The value of the work, according to the agreement is Rs. 4,19,641/ which was required to be completed within a period of six months. A final bill was prepared by the railways, which according to the petitioner is a defective one. He has alleged to have signed the final bill under protest. ( 2 ) BE that as it may, the petitioner vide letter dated 31-12-2001 required the respondents to pay the alleged dues or in the alternative to refer the dispute to the arbitrator under Clauses 63 and 64 of the general Conditions of Contract which form part of the agreement. As there was no response, the petitioner had chosen to file the application under Section 11 (5), and (6) of the Act. ( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted no Claim Certificate and therefore the dispute between the parties is no more arbitrable. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge after an elaborate consideration of the matter found that in view of the no claim certificate submitted by the petitioner herein, the dispute, if any, between the parties is no more arbitrable and therefore the application is not maintainable. The contention that was urged by the petitioner before the learned single Judge that the no claim certificate was not a bona fide one was rejected by the learned Single Judge. ( 5 ) IN our considered opinion, the decision of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record requiring any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. It is needless to state that this court does not exercise any appellate jurisdiction over the orders passed by the designated Judge under section 11 (5) and (6) of the Act. It is needless to state that this court does not exercise any appellate jurisdiction over the orders passed by the designated Judge under section 11 (5) and (6) of the Act. The decision making process is not vitiated in any manner whatsoever. We cannot reappreciate the evidence and the material available on record and substitute our own findings with that of the designated Judge. ( 6 ) THE writ petition fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed at the stage of admission