ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The present arbitration application has been filed for appointment of arbitrator in accordance with provision of Section 11(6)(C) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The petitioner was allotted work of transportation of surplus earth from Bhojudih Coal Washery. The work was allotted by work order dated 7.3.2000 pursuant to the notice dated 20.8.1999. The work has to be completed within the stipulated time. The petitioners case is that after completion of the job, several letters were sent but the bills were not finalized. Ultimately dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner, therefore, invoked Clause 9 of the Agreement which is arbitration clause and gave notice for reference of the dispute for arbitration. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner has already moved the Subordinate Judge-I, Dhanbad by filing application under Section 9 of the said Act which was registered as Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 45 of 2003. This fact has not been disclosed in the arbitration application. It is therefore contended that the petitioner cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies. 4. In course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced before me certified copy of a petition filed by the respondent in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 45 of 2003 before the Subordinate Judge-I, Dhanbad, wherein the respondent has stated the names of the Arbitrators. These facts have not been denied or disputed by the parties. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that when Misc. Case filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act is pending before the Subordinate Judge, the instant application is not maintainable. Hence, it is dismissed.