JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. All these interlocutory applications arose out of aforesaid Arbitration Application Nos. 27, 28, 35, 36 & 37 of 2004, which were disposed of on 30.3.2005. Since in all these interlocutory applications, common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners haves filed these interlocutory applications under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of substituted arbitrator in place of O.P. No. 3 the Superintending Engmeer, Road Construction Department, Dhanbad, the named arbitrator. 3. Petitioners case is that pursuant to common order dated 30.3.2005 passed in Arbitration Application Nos. 27, 28, 45, 46 and 47 of 2004, the dispute and differences were referred to O.P. No.3 -Superintending Engineer for decision. It is stated that respondent No.3 -the Superintending Engineer refused and declined the appointment and refused to be arbitrator in all the cases and, therefore, according to the petitioner, the appointment of the arbitrator stood terminated and, hence a substituted arbitrator is to be appointed as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act. 4. I have heard Mr. N.K.Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr Manjul Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the State. 5. the admitted facts are that the petitioners filed Arbitration Applications under Section11(6) of the Act for reference of the dispute to arbitration in terms of Clause 23 of the Contract. Those applications were registered as Arbitration Application Nos. 27, 28, 35, 36 and 37 of 2004. Despite sufficient time allowed to the respondents, no counter affidavits wore filed and those applications wore finally listed for hearing on 30,3.2005. Learned J.C. to A.G. who was appearing for the respondents, did not dispute the existence of arbitration clause, rather the only contention made was that the petitioners failed to appear before the Superintending Engineer inspite of notice given by him. This Court after hearing the parties referred the matter to the named arbitrator, namely, the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction (National Highway), Circle Dhanbad, in terms of the order dated 30.3.2005. The order reads as under: Heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Advocate General. This Court after hearing the parties referred the matter to the named arbitrator, namely, the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction (National Highway), Circle Dhanbad, in terms of the order dated 30.3.2005. The order reads as under: Heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Advocate General. In these request petitions filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute arisen out of a contract allotted to the petitioner by the respondents. In these cases existence of arbitration agreement has not been denied and disputed by the respondents. Petitioners case is that the Superintending engineer, Road Construction (National high Way) Circle, Dhanbad, who is the named Arbitrator, failed to discharge his duty by not entering into reference inspite of repeated requests made, by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appointment of an independent Arbitrator. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner failed to appear before the Superintending Engineer inspite of notice given to him. After hearing the counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it fit and proper to direct the Superintending Engineer Road Construction (National High Way) Circle, Dhanbad, who is the named Arbitrator, to enter into reference forthwith and give his award within a period of four months from the date of entering into reference. With the above direction these request petitions are, disposed of, 6. It transpires from the record that the respondent- Executive Engineer filed statement of facts before the Superintending Engineer (Arbitrator) stating that Clause 23 has been deleted from the contract and therefore, the dispute cannot be adjudicated through arbitration. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner before the Arbitrator, it was contended that the arbitration clause could not be unilaterally altered by the respondents. 7. The Superintending Engineer, by letter dated 30.9.2005 addressed to the Registrar of this Court, declined to proceed in the matter and returned the appointment to this Court with a request to exclude the subject matter from arbitration clause. Hence, these interlocutory applications have been filed by the petitioner for appointment of substituted arbitrator since the named arbitrator, so appointed, has declined to enter into the reference. 8. Mr. Hence, these interlocutory applications have been filed by the petitioner for appointment of substituted arbitrator since the named arbitrator, so appointed, has declined to enter into the reference. 8. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that Clause 23 of the Contract was abolished vide resolution dated 18.11.1992 and was published in the official gazette. Learned Counsel further submitted that by publishing in the gazette it was notified to all concerned regarding deletion of Clause 23 from the Contract. The Superintending Engineer, therefore, rightly refused and declined to adjudicate the dispute through arbitration. 9. It has not been disputed by the respondents that in the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondents -Executive Engineer, Clause 23 which is an arbitration clause has been incorporated. Clause 23 of the Contract, duly signed by the Executive Engineer, was neither deleted nor struck off and the parties were fully aware about the existence of Clause 23 (Arbitration clause) in the contract. Accordingly, applications under Section 11(6) of the Act were filed by the petitioners. The existence of Arbitration clause in the contract was neither denied nor disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondents. Consequently, this Court, by order dated .30.3.2005, referred the matter to the Superintending Engineer, the named arbitrator, for adjudication. 10. The only question, therefore, that falls for consideration is whether the Superintending Engineer, the named Arbitrator, has erred in refusing to enter into the reference on the ground of non-existence of arbitration clause in the contract. This question has been fully answered by this Court in the case of Lakeshwari Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. Arbitration Application No. 17 of 2005. This Court held that in view of Clause 23 incorporated in the contract which was duly signed by the parties after fully understanding the contents of the contract, the respondents cannot back out from the terms of contract merely on the ground of resolution whereby Clause 23 alleged to have been deleted from the contract. Besides the above, in the main application the respondents did not dispute the existence of arbitration clause and this Court, by cider dated 30.3.2006 rctcrred the matter to the Superintending Engineer for adjudication of the dispute. 11. Besides the above, in the main application the respondents did not dispute the existence of arbitration clause and this Court, by cider dated 30.3.2006 rctcrred the matter to the Superintending Engineer for adjudication of the dispute. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the named arbitralor refused to enter into the reference, it is fit and proper to appoint an independent arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. Hence, Mr. Justice P.K Sarkar, a retired Judge of the Patna High Court, is appointed as an arbitrator. He is requested to enter into the reference and publish his award within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.