JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner/RSRTC has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 30.05.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur appointing an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. The respondent/Contractor filed an application before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 wherein it was contended that an agreement was entered between both the parties, whereby respondent-contractor Jai Raj Sharma agreed for the maintaining and cleaning of the urinals/toilets at the various bus stand on monthly payment of Rs. 1,65,000/-. It was further contended that the Corporation was under obligation to hand-over all the urinals/toilets, but only 18 urinals/toilets were handed-over to the Contractor, out of total 44 urinals/toilets, and thereby dispute arose being breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement. It was further contended that he sent a letter for the appointment of the Arbitrator according to Clause 24 of the Agreement, but the Corporation did not take any action, therefore, the application was moved before the learned District Judge for the appointment of the independent Arbitrator. The application was contested by the Corporation before the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned District Judge vide its order dated 30.05.2002 allowed the application of the Contractor and appointed one retired Judicial Officer, as an Arbitrator in the present matter for the disposal of the disputes in between both the parties regarding violation of the agreement dated 09.01.2001. 4. The said order has been challenged by the Corporation by way of the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/RSRTC contended that according to Clause 24 of the Agreement, the Chairman of the first party i.e. the Corporation should have been appointed a sole Arbitrator and the learned District Judge committed an illegality in appointing other Judicial Officer, as an Arbitrator in the present matter, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/Contractor contended that there was dispute in between both the parties and he moved an application for the appointment of the-Arbitrator before the Corporation, but no action was taken on his application. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/Contractor contended that there was dispute in between both the parties and he moved an application for the appointment of the-Arbitrator before the Corporation, but no action was taken on his application. In these circumstances, there was no option left for him, except to move an application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 for the appointment of an independent Arbitrator to resolve the disputes in between both the parties in respect of violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the reasons assigned by the learned District Judge in the impugned order dated 30.05.2002. 8. The learned District Judge has quoted Clause 24 of the Agreement in the impugned order and according to that Clause "in case of any dispute or litigation in between the parties with regard to any violation of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, then the Chairman of the Corporation will be the sole Arbitrator and his decision shall be final and binding on both the parties." The Lower Court has observed that a dispute in between both the parties exists and the Contractor has moved an application for the appointment of the Arbitrator before the Corporation, but no action was taken on his application, thereafter he also sent a notice through his Counsel, but no action was taken on that notice also. The copies of the application and notice sent by the Contractor to the Corporation have been placed on the record. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge appointed a Judicial Officer, as an Arbitrator in the present case to resolve the dispute in between both the parties. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned District Judge appointing a retired Judicial Officer, as an Arbitrator in the present case. Although, there is a provision for-the sole Arbitrator in Clause 24 of the Agreement, but the Corporation failed to appoint the Chairman as a sole Arbitrator and in these circumstances the learned District Judge committed no illegality in appointing a retired Judicial Officer, as an Arbitrator in the present case. 9. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******