JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned for the petitioner and respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for appointment of independent/impartial arbitrator for an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties in respect of two agreements dated 24.1.2008. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that he deposited the security money of Rs. 25,000/- to the Railway Administration and he further spent Rs. 2,50,000/ (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) towards establishment, which include space arrangement, hiring personnel etc. at Danapur, Barauni and Kamakhya, for carrying out the transaction as per agreements to load goods at Danapur on the train i.e. 3248 Dn. Express Danapur to Kamakhya, and unload the same at Kamakhya and the same was allowed by the Railways. 4. The petitioner further submits that the articles concerned, namely, 30,000 eggs and four tones fishes worth Rs. 8,75,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs seventy five thousand) were loaded by the petitioner on 4.2.2008, on the train from Danapur, but the same was not allowed to be unloaded at Kamakhya on 5.2.2008 after 10 P.M. when the train reached there. Similarly, the second consignment was also not allowed to be unloaded on 6.2.2008, due to which the petitioner suffered huge monetary loss. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition before Railway Authorities for arbitration as per clause 28 of the lease contract on 20.10.2008 to settle the said dispute between the parties, but no step was taken by the respondents. Hence, the instant request case was filed before this Court on 22.12.2008. 5. The respondents filed counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner saying that if the Court thinks fit and proper to resolve the dispute between the parties, an arbitrator may be appointed and they named two persons either of whom was requested to be appointed as an arbitrator. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the names proposed by the respondents were of persons working in the Railways and hence, they cannot be neutral persons and he proposed the names of two persons mentioned in paragraph 22 of their petition to which learned counsel for the respondents opposed. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that both parties are ready and willing for appointment of an arbitrator, but the question in dispute remains as to who would be appointed arbitrator for resolving the dispute. 8. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that both parties are ready and willing for appointment of an arbitrator, but the question in dispute remains as to who would be appointed arbitrator for resolving the dispute. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court appoints Shri N.C. Lala, retired District Judge, as an arbitrator to consider the matter and prepare an award with regard to the dispute in accordance with provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 9. Both the parties are directed to approach the said arbitrator within three weeks from today whereafter the said arbitrator will fix dates after calculating the expenses and his fees. 10. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this request case is disposed of.