JUDGMENT 1. Interesting and short question of law which is posed for consideration of this Court is as under: Whether Notification dated 23.09.2003 specifying the work of all types of pipelines of the State Government or as the case may be, of the Public Undertaking for the purpose of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 would be applicable prospective or retrospectively i.e. even with respect to the contract / agreement entered into prior to 23.09.2003 or not? 2. Present application has been preferred by the applicant / petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') to appoint sole arbitrator from the panel given in the letter dated 17.01.2007 as per Annexure L for the adjudication of disputes / difference, rights and claims which have arisen out of the contract and which are narrated in the notice dated 29.03.2005. 3. Facts leading to the present application and so pleaded by the petitioner in nutshell are as under: 3.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm and carrying on the business of Contractors & Building and the firm is registered as Class AA contractor in the approved list with the Government of Gujarat in the name and style of 'M/s. R.M.DASA'. That the respondent Board invited tenders for establishment of five group water supply scheme for the district of Banaskantha. In response to that the petitioner submitted his tender which was accepted by the Tender Purchase Committee of the respondent Board and the work was awarded to the petitioner and the tender agreement was executed on 12.04.1999 and the work was issued vide Work Order No.AB/ TC / 5 RWSS / 934 on dated 12.04.1999. As per tender terms the time limit for execution of the work was 18 months and the work was to be completed on or before 11.10.2000. As per the petitioner, on receipt of acceptance letter dated 24.03.1999 the petitioner had planned programme to complete the entire work within a period of 18 months and accordingly arranged mobilization of the manpower and machineries as well as financial resources so that the work can be started immediately after receipt of the order to start the work. That immediately on receipt of the order to start work on dated 12.04.1999 the petitioner started the work. That immediately on receipt of the order to start work on dated 12.04.1999 the petitioner started the work. That dispute arose between the parties and there were various correspondences between the parties. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that due to failure of source the petitioner was asked to stop execution of all the works coming under the Pansa scheme vide letter dated 29.05.2000. As per the petitioner, respondent Board failed to perform its reciprocal contractual obligations. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that due to failure of the respondent -Board to hand over the entire 100% the petitioner could execute almost 28% of the contractual work (the work of the value of Rs.1,21,85,896/- remained unexecuted) and suffered huge 'profit loss'. The petitioner shall have to be compensated for 'loss of profit' at 20% on the amount of unexecuted work. That the petitioner incurred heavy loss in executing and completing the subject work due to non-availability of working fronts as well as prolongation of contractual period for the reasons attributable to the respondent. That the petitioner raised dispute by serving notice on 29.03.2005 and made various claims as mentioned in the said notice. That as per the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,35,30,481/- plus interest as per claim No.11 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on all above claims from the due date till the date of actual payment of realization. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that certain disputes and differences have arisen out of the contract during the execution of the work. In the contract agreement there is an arbitration clause and as per arbitration clause No.26-A-1 and 26-A-2 of the tender condition read with clause 27 the disputes are to be referred to arbitration. That thereafter respondent no.3 has given the work order dated 12.04.1999. As per the petitioner, after the petitioner's claim notice dated 29.03.2005, the petitioner has written a letter for discussion or negotiation to resolve the disputes as per earlier letter dated 06.09.2005. That thereafter, there was another correspondence by Executive Engineer vide letter dated 30.11.2005 to the petitioner. The petitioner gave reply to the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 03.01.2006 requesting to establish D.R.B. as early as possible. That thereafter, there was another correspondence by Executive Engineer vide letter dated 30.11.2005 to the petitioner. The petitioner gave reply to the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 03.01.2006 requesting to establish D.R.B. as early as possible. That as respondent did not respond to the petitioner's request the petitioner served legal notice dated 02.09.2006 for referring the matter to Dispute Resolution Board within a period of 15 days from the receipt of notice. That the petitioner received reply from the respondent through its Advocate by reply dated 18.09.2006. As per the respondent there was no dispute of any nature existing between the parties and it was not necessary to refer to the Dispute Resolution Board as provided under clause 26-A-1. That thereafter, the petitioner gave another notice / reply through its advocate on 16.10.2006 and again requested the respondents to refer the matter to Dispute Resolution Board as per clause 26-A-1 vide notice dated 03.11.2006. That thereafter, the petitioner's Advocate served notice dated 17.01.2007 for selecting anyone as sole arbitrator from the panel of three arbitrators for resolving the dispute, failing which the petitioner will move to the Hon'ble Chief Justice or its nominee of the High Court of Gujarat under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. That notice was replied by the respondent through its Advocate on 20.02.2007 and declined to select any one as arbitrator. That thereafter vide notice dated 20.09.2007 the petitioner has selected one member for DRB which was served on 21.09.2007 upon the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner gave reminder notice dated 31.12.2007 and though served respondent did not appoint any member from their side. That thereafter respondent No.3 has given false and evasive reply through its Advocate on 28.01.2008 and denied to appoint one member for DRB as per notice dated 31.01.2007. Thus, according to the petitioner, respondents have not complied with provisions of tender agreement and they did not establish DRB and hence they have invoked arbitration clause 26-A-2 and therefore, present application has been preferred by the petitioner contractor for appointment of sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties, in exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. 4. 4. Mr.J.R.Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing with Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has raised preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of the present petition before this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act by submitting that in view of Notification dated 23.09.2003 issued by the Legal Department, Government of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred by clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992') specifying the work of all types of pipelines of the State Government or as the case may be, of the Public Undertaking for the purpose of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, alleged dispute between the petitioner and respondent is required to be resolved and/or deal with by the tribunal constituted Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act only therefore, present petition deserves to be dismissed. Considering above, preliminary objection raised by the respondent this Court is required to deal with such preliminary objection as it is with respect to jurisdiction and maintainability of present application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. 5. Mr.H.K.Parmar, learned Advocate for the petitioner dealing with the preliminary objection raised by the respondent with respect to applicability of Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, has submitted that question which has arisen before this Court is whether Notification dated 23.09.2003 has prospective or retrospective operation. It is submitted by Mr.Parmar, learned Advocate for the petitioner that Notification dated 23.09.2003 is silent whether it has prospective effect or retrospective effect. It is submitted that applicant's right for the arbitration is accrued when the agreement was executed between the parties and when the work order was issued on 12.04.1999. It is submitted that looking to the definition of work contract as provided under Section 2(1)(k) of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, when the work / contract was entrusted by the respondent to present petitioner on 12.04.1999, it was not 'works contract' and as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the procedure for the settlement of disputes and adjudication of the disputes are provided in the contract viz. 26-A-1 and 26-A-2. There are provisions for agreeing the rights of both the parties for adjudication of the disputes. 26-A-1 and 26-A-2. There are provisions for agreeing the rights of both the parties for adjudication of the disputes. It is submitted that present work was not incorporated in the definition of the 'works contract' at the time of contract / works order. Therefore, by Notification dated 23.09.2003 whatever the right is agreed by the parties that cannot be taken away later on by such notification. It is submitted that as per section 21 of the Arbitration Tribunal, 1992, provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, cease to apply any disputes arising from works contract. It is submitted that at the time of awarding the work to the petitioner it was not works contract and if it is included in the works contract later on, then also section 21 will not be applicable to transfer this matter to the Arbitration Tribunal. It is submitted that as per various settled principles of law any Notification which is pertaining to such type of eventuality the right which is agreed by both the parties cannot be taken away by such type of notification. It is submitted that it is the provisions regarding the adjudication of the disputes, as flown from the agreed terms of the agreement, therefore, by this way the right can be considered accrued from the date of executing the agreement between the parties and the right of the parties are decided as per the agreement and not as per the notification unilaterally decided by the other side. It is submitted that right of adjudication forum cannot be taken away by such type of notification. 5.1 It is submitted that looking to the provisions of section 21 of Arbitration Tribunal 'all arbitration proceedings in relation to such dispute before an arbitrator, umpire, court or authority shall stand transferred to the Tribunal. It is submitted that 'dispute' is defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Tribunal Act and means any difference relating to any claim valued at any amount equal to or exceeding fifty thousand rupees, arising out of the execution or non-execution of the whole or part of a works contract. It is submitted that therefore, it pertains to 'works contract'. Meaning the agreement. Therefore, it is submitted that when the agreement was executed between the parties, the works was not the 'works contract'. It is submitted that therefore, it pertains to 'works contract'. Meaning the agreement. Therefore, it is submitted that when the agreement was executed between the parties, the works was not the 'works contract'. Therefore, by Notification it cannot be considered that works contract and therefore, jurisdiction cannot be conferred to the Tribunal. Referring to sections 8, 13 of the Arbitration Tribunal, 1992, it is submitted that Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 came into force on 01.01.1994 and inspite of same, intention of the party was to adjudicate the disputes commenced to the party for selecting the forum for adjudication of the disputes. It is submitted that inspite of above, when agreement was executed in 1999, in the agreement name of Arbitration Tribunal was not mentioned in the arbitration clause. So in the agreement it was agreed between the parties the domestic arbitration. It is submitted that Arbitration and Conciliation Act came into force on 25.01.1996. Taking into consideration this domestic forum for the adjudication of the disputes, both the parties have agreed upon for the settlement of the disputes or adjudication of the disputes through the domestic arbitration, as at the relevant time works was not falling within the definition of works contract. 5.2 Mr.Parmar, learned Advocate for the petitioner has heavily relied upon decision of this Court in the case of S.M.Dubey & Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 1993 (2) GLH 99 (para 65 and 66); in the case of Zabir Mohmad Hafeezi Ismail Patel & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 1997 (1) GLR 140 (para 11). Mr.Parmar, learned Advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills v/s. Union of India reported in (2007) SCC 198 as well as decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. V/s. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 620 in support of his submission that Notification dated 23.09.2003 would not be applicable retrospectively with respect to the agreement / works order dated 12.04.1999. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 620 in support of his submission that Notification dated 23.09.2003 would not be applicable retrospectively with respect to the agreement / works order dated 12.04.1999. 5.3 Mr.Parmar, learned Advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that petitioner has right of speedy resolution of the dispute and if the contention on behalf of the respondent is accepted and proceedings are transferred to the Arbitration Tribunal, in that case, right of the petitioner to have dispute settled by the domestic arbitration will be taken away. By making above submissions and relying upon aforesaid decisions, it is requested to allow present application and to appoint arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. 6. Petition is opposed by Mr.J.R.Nanavati, learned Advocate with Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned Advocate for the respondent. It is submitted that in view of Notification dated 23.09.2003 now specifying works of all types of pipe lines of the State Government or as the case may be of the Public Undertaking within the definition of 'work contract', the dispute between the parties can only be now decided and resolved by the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal only and as per section 13 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, no other Court shall have jurisdiction to deal with or decide the dispute. It is submitted that even as per section 21 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, provisions of the Arbitration Act shall in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, cease to apply to any dispute arising from a works contract and all arbitration proceeding in relation to such dispute before an arbitrator, umpire, court or authority shall stand transferred to the said Tribunal. Therefore, it is submitted that even pending dispute before the arbitrator, umpire, court or authority stand transfer to the said Tribunal, there is no question of now referring the parties to the arbitration and appointing arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. Mr.J.R.Nanavati, learned Advocate for the respondent has further submitted that admittedly claim notice has been issued in the year 2005 i.e. after Notification dated 23.09.2003. Therefore, it can be said that dispute has arisen between the parties after Notification dated 23.09.2003 and therefore, what is relevant is the date on which dispute has arisen and not the date on which contract was executed. Therefore, it can be said that dispute has arisen between the parties after Notification dated 23.09.2003 and therefore, what is relevant is the date on which dispute has arisen and not the date on which contract was executed. Relying upon section 8 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, it is submitted that it provides that where any dispute arises between the parties to the work contract, either party shall refer such dispute in writing to the Arbitration tribunal. Therefore, it is submitted that relevant date which is required to be considered is the date on which dispute has arisen and not the date on which works contract was executed. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no question of operating Government Notification dated 23.09.2003 retrospectively as alleged and/or contended on behalf of the petitioner. Mr.Nanavati, learned Advocate for the respondent has relied upon decision of this Court in the case of B.Patel & Co. v/s. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 1998 (3) GLR 1913 . Making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to dismiss present petition and/or transfer present proceedings to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992. 7. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 8. v/s. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 1998 (3) GLR 1913 . Making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to dismiss present petition and/or transfer present proceedings to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992. 7. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 8. Before considering rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, relevant provisions of Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 which are necessary for determination of controversy in the present petition are required to be referred to which are as under: Section 2(e) dispute means any difference relating to any claim valued at any amount equal to or exceeding fifty thousand rupees, arising out of the execution or non-execution of the whole or part of the works contract; Section 2(k) Work contract means a contract made by the State Government or the public undertaking with any other person for the execution of any works relating to construction, repairs or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory or workshop or of such other work of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the public undertaking, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify and includes- (i) a contract made for the supply of goods relating to the execution of any of such works (ii) a contract made by the Central Stores Purchase Organization of the State Government for purchase or sale of goods. Section 8 Reference to Tribunal and making of award: (1) Where any dispute arises between the parties to the works contract, either party shall, irrespective of whether such works contract contains an arbitration clause or not, refer, within one year from the date when the dispute has arisen, such dispute in writing to the Tribunal for arbitration in such from and accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such fees, as may be prescribed. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may if satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem fit to make, that the requirements under this Act in relation to the reference are complied with, admit such reference and where the tribunal is not so satisfied, it may reject the reference summarily. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may if satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem fit to make, that the requirements under this Act in relation to the reference are complied with, admit such reference and where the tribunal is not so satisfied, it may reject the reference summarily. (3) Where the tribunal admits the reference under sub-section (2) it shall after recording evidence if necessary, and after perusal of the material on record and on affording an opportunity to the parties to submit their arguments, make an award or an interim award, giving its reasons therefor. (4) The Tribunal shall use all reasonable dispatch in entering on and proceeding with the reference admitted by it and making the award, and an endeavour shall be made to make an award within four months from the date on which the Tribunal had admitted the reference. (5) The award including the interim award made by the Tribunal shall, subject to an order, if any, made under section 11 or 12 be final and binding on the parties to the dispute. (6) An award including an interim award as confirmed or varied by an order, if any, made under section 11 or 12 shall be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of the principal court of original jurisdiction within the local limits whereof the award or the interim award has been made and shall be executed accordingly. Section 13 : Bar of jurisdiction of Courts : (1) Save as otherwise provided by section 12, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to deal with or decide any question which the Tribunal is empowered to deal with and decide by or under this Act and no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power by or under this Act. (2) No award or interim award or order made or proceeding taken under this Act by the Tribunal shall be called in question in Civil Court. (2) No award or interim award or order made or proceeding taken under this Act by the Tribunal shall be called in question in Civil Court. Section 21 : Arbitration Act to cease to apply: The provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 shall in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, cease to apply to any dispute arising from a works contract and all arbitration proceedings in relation to such dispute before an arbitrator, umpire, court or authority shall stand transferred to the Tribunal. 8.1 Prior to Notification dated 23.09.2003 work of all types of pipe liens was not within the definition of Section 2(1)(k) of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992. As per Section 2(1)(k) of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, Work contract means a contract made by the State Government or the public undertaking with any other person for the execution of any works relating to construction, repairs or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory or workshop or of such other work of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the public undertaking, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify and includes- (i) a contract made for the supply of goods relating to the execution of any of such works (ii) a contract made by the Central Stores Purchase Organization of the State Government for purchase or sale of goods. Thus, under Section 2(1)(k) of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 vide Notification in the Official Gazette the State Government may specify work also. Thus in exercise of powers conferred by clause (k) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, vide Notification dated 23.09.2003 the State Government has specified work of all types of pipe lines of the State Government for the purpose of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992. As per section 8 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, where any dispute arises between the parties with respect to such works contract, either party shall, irrespective of whether such works contract contains an arbitration clause or not, refer, within one year from the date when the dispute has arisen, such dispute in writing to the Tribunal for arbitration. As per section 8 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, where any dispute arises between the parties with respect to such works contract, either party shall, irrespective of whether such works contract contains an arbitration clause or not, refer, within one year from the date when the dispute has arisen, such dispute in writing to the Tribunal for arbitration. Thus on and from 23.09.2003 even with respect to work of all types of pipe lines, any dispute arises between the parties to the works contract, either party shall, irrespective of whether such works contract contains an arbitration clause or not, refer, within one year from the date when the dispute has arisen, such dispute in writing to the Tribunal for arbitration. 8.2 As per section 13 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, save as otherwise provided by section 12, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to deal with or decide any question which the Tribunal is empowered to deal with and decide by or under the said Act and no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power by or under Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992. Therefore, considering section 13 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 on and after 23.09.2003, for any dispute arising between the parties to the work contract of pipe lines of the State Government or Public Undertaking, no Civil Court would have any jurisdiction and only the Tribunal constituted under the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 shall have jurisdiction. It is to be noted that eve as per section 21 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 shall in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, cease to apply to any dispute arising from a 'works contract' and all arbitration proceedings in relation to such dispute before an arbitrator, umpire, court or authority shall stand transferred to the Tribunal. Therefore, in a case where even arbitration proceedings relating to such dispute is pending before arbitrator, umpire, court or authority, it shall transfer to the tribunal constituted under the Act. Mr.Parmar, learned Advocate for the petitioner has sought to contend that in the present case Arbitration proceedings cannot be said to have been initiated and therefore, section 21 would not be applicable. Mr.Parmar, learned Advocate for the petitioner has sought to contend that in the present case Arbitration proceedings cannot be said to have been initiated and therefore, section 21 would not be applicable. It is submitted that only in a case where Arbitration proceedings were pending they were required to be transferred. Such contention cannot be accepted. When even in a case where arbitration proceedings were already pending before the arbitrator, they shall transfer to the tribunal, there is no question of subsequently now appointing arbitrator under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 8.3 Therefore, considering the aforesaid provisions of Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that relevant date for consideration would be date on which works order was executed i.e. 12.04.1999 and not the date on which dispute has arisen cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that Notification dated 23.09.2003 would not be applicable retrospectively also cannot be accepted. There is no question of making Notification dated 23.09.2003 applicable retrospectively. By law considering section 2(1)(k), section 8, section 13, section 21, on and from the date on which particular contract / works contract is brought within definition of Section 2(1)(k), for the dispute arising between the parties to such works contract, only the tribunal constituted under Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 would have jurisdiction. 8.4 As stated above, relevant date would be date on which dispute has arisen and not the date on which work contract was executed. On fair reading of section 8 relevant date for approaching Tribunal would be date on which dispute has arisen. In para 10 of the petition, the petitioner himself has submitted that cause of action has arisen on 29.03.2005 and onwards and finally on 20.02.2007. Therefore, when the dispute has arisen with respect to work order on 29.03.2005 and onwards, even considering Notification dated 23.09.2003, 'work contract' is provided in Section 2(1)(k) of the Act and as and when any dispute arise between the parties to such works contract, either party shall refer the dispute in writing to the Arbitration Tribunal. Therefore, when the dispute has arisen with respect to work order on 29.03.2005 and onwards, even considering Notification dated 23.09.2003, 'work contract' is provided in Section 2(1)(k) of the Act and as and when any dispute arise between the parties to such works contract, either party shall refer the dispute in writing to the Arbitration Tribunal. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that Notification dated 23.09.2003 bringing works of pipe lines within the definition of 'work contract' under section 2(1)(k) of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 shall not effect works contract executed prior to dated 23.09.2003 and/or for which work order/ contract is executed prior to 23.09.2003, the provisions of Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 would not be applicable, cannot be accepted and has no substance. Now so far as the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are concerned, they are not of any assistance to the petitioner in view of statutory provisions and findings and observations by this Court. 9. For the reasons stated above, in light of above observations, findings by this Court, it is held that even where any dispute arises between the parties to the work contract (though brought within the definition of 'works contract' under Section 2(1)(k) of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 subsequently i.e. after execution of such contract) dispute has arisen after 23.09.2003, parties to such work contract are governed by section 8 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 only and dispute is to be resolved by the Tribunal constituted under the aforesaid Act of 1992 only and no Court shall have any jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties to such work contract, may be executed prior to 23.09.2003. 10. In view of above, prayer of the petitioner to appoint sole arbitrator in exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and to refer the parties to the domestic arbitration cannot be accepted and granted. The petitioner to approach the Tribunal constituted under the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 for resolving the dispute between the parties with respect to work contract in question. As and when such application is made before the learned Tribunal, it will be open for the petitioner to invoke Section 16 and 17 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 with appropriate application and same shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits. As and when such application is made before the learned Tribunal, it will be open for the petitioner to invoke Section 16 and 17 of the Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 with appropriate application and same shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits. Accordingly, present application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.