JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. THIS is a petition filed under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, in terms of Arbitration Clause No.66 contained in the agreement dated 23.7.1999, entered into between the petitioner and the respondents for execution of certain public works. Certain disputes, with regard to execution of the work, as also interpretation of terms of the agreement, have arisen inter se the parties. Petitioner, in terms of letter dated 19.1.2013, invoked the Arbitration Clause requesting the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator. In the absence of any action on the part of the respondent, petitioner preferred the present petition, which was filed on 26.3.2013. No reply has been filed by the respondent. 2. ALSO, request for filing the same has not been made today. However, a request has been made by Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, that the Superintendent Engineer (Arbitration), H.P.P.W.D., Solan, be appointed as a sole arbitrator. Keeping in view the decisions rendered by the apex Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. versus Tata Finance Ltd and Another, (2000) 8 SCC 151 ; Union of India versus Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co.(P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 684 ; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another versus Motorola India Private Limited, (2009) 2 SCC 337 ; Indian Oil corporation Limited and Others versus Raja Transport Private Limited, (2009) 8 SCC 520 ; and Bipromasz Bipron Trading SA versus Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), (2012) 6 SCC 384 , this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent only merits rejection. Execution of the agreement; existence and validity of the arbitration clause; and existence of disputes referable to arbitration having arisen out of the works allotted to the petitioner and agreement executed in relation thereto, is not in dispute before this Court. 3. IN the instant case, the arbitration clause contains certain procedure to be followed by the parties. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the parties, under instructions, jointly agree and submit that a sole Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes, having arisen out of and in terms of the agreement, inter se the parties to this lis. 4. AS such, as prayed for, in my considered view all disputes between the parties can be referred to the arbitration of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.N. Rao, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. 4. AS such, as prayed for, in my considered view all disputes between the parties can be referred to the arbitration of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.N. Rao, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. His consent has been obtained. Ordered accordingly. Learned Arbitrator is requested to enter reference within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties undertake to fully cooperate and not to take any unnecessary adjournment so that the proceedings can be concluded at the earliest. Proceedings shall be held anywhere within the State of Himachal Pradesh. However, if parties so consent, then the same can be held anywhere in India. Award shall be reasoned. 5. LEARNED Arbitrator shall be at liberty to determine his own fee, which shall be equally shared by the parties. In addition to the fee, learned Arbitrator shall also be entitled for all secretarial allowances, as also expenses for travel, lodging and boarding. The learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to take assistance of any technical expert(s). All such expenses shall also be equally shared by the parties. 6. REGISTRAR General of this Court is directed to immediately intimate the learned Arbitrator of the passing of this order by sending a copy thereof. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.