ORDER : Aloke Aradhe, J. Heard. By means of this petition under section 11(6) read with section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') the petitioner seeks constitution of arbitral tribunal. In order to appreciate the petitioner's grievance, few facts need mention which are stated infra. 2. An agreement was executed between the parties on 6-10-2003 for rehabilitation of sheer bridge. A dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner made a request on 21-4-2004 to constitute an arbitral tribunal. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. Thereupon, the General Manager, West Central Railway vide letter dated 30-6-2006 appointed an arbitral tribunal consisting of two arbitrators and one presiding arbitrator as provided under Clause 64 of the General Conditions of the contract. The arbitral tribunal held four meetings between 24-10-2007 to 8-8-2008. The General Manager of the West Central Railway vide letter dated 6-9-2010 constituted presiding officer and appointed one H. Godbole as presiding officer. Thereafter the presiding arbitrator was changed thrice and co-arbitrators were changed four times by the General Manager, West Central Railway. The petitioner on 29-7-2010 made a request to appoint arbitral tribunal. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under section 11(6) of the Act on 22-3-2013 for constitution of the arbitral tribunal. On 24-7-2013, one Smt. Anuradha Mukhedkar who was presiding officer was transferred to Kota. Admittedly no presiding officer has been appointed in her place till today. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned senior counsel submitted that at present there is no presiding officer and the respondent has forfeited its right to constitute the arbitral tribunal in view of their inaction. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s Deep Trading Company v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation, 2013(3) MPLJ (S.C.) 51 : AIR 2013 SC 1479 and M/s Vidyawati Construction Co. v. M/s Rail India Tech. and ECO. Services Ltd., SLP (Civil) No. 14647-14648/2001 decided on 19-11-2001 as well as decision of the Madras High Court in A. Chockalingam v. Union of India, AIR 2015 Madras 153. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that application under section 11 (6) of the Act is not maintainable and the petitioner should file an application seeking termination of mandate of arbitration. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that application under section 11 (6) of the Act is not maintainable and the petitioner should file an application seeking termination of mandate of arbitration. It is further submitted that the General Manager of the West Central Railway shall constitute an arbitral tribunal within the time as may be stipulated by this Court and the arbitral tribunal shall conclude the proceeding within such time as may be directed by this Court in this regard. Learned counsel for respondent has also produced the record of the proceeding before the arbitral tribunal. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision in Yash with Constructions (P) Ltd. v.v. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. and another, (2006) 6 SCC 204 . 5. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Relevant extract of section 14 of the Act reads as under : 14. Failure or impossibility to act. - (1) The mandate of an Arbitrator shall terminate if - (a) He becomes de jure or de factor unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay." 6. It is well settled in law that the mode of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism is for expeditious disposal of a dispute between the parties. In the instant case, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 30-6-2006. Thereafter till 8-8-2008 four meetings were held. On 29-7-2010, another presiding officer was appointed. From perusal of the record it is evident that the presiding officer has been changed thrice whereas co arbitrators have been substituted four times. The petitioner again made an application on 29-7-2010 to constitute the arbitral tribunal. Thereafter the instant application was filed on 22-3-2013. 7. Admittedly, on 24-7-2013, the presiding arbitrator has been transferred and no arbitrator has been appointed in her place. Thus, the proceeding in the arbitration has not proceeded further since 24-7-2013. No doubt, the petitioner has not participated in the proceeding since March, 2013. However, the fact remains, for a period from 30-6-2006 till 22-3-2013 i.e. nearly after a period of seven years, the arbitral tribunal constituted by the respondent has not been able to conclude the proceeding. Thus, the proceeding in the arbitration has not proceeded further since 24-7-2013. No doubt, the petitioner has not participated in the proceeding since March, 2013. However, the fact remains, for a period from 30-6-2006 till 22-3-2013 i.e. nearly after a period of seven years, the arbitral tribunal constituted by the respondent has not been able to conclude the proceeding. Reference may also be made to Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 which has been published in the gazette on 23-10-2015 by which section 29-A is sought to be incorporated in the Act which provides that arbitral tribunal shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date when it enters upon the reference. From the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the arbitral tribunal and the fact that since 24-7-2013 there is no presiding arbitrator of the arbitral tribunal, it is evident that there is loss of mandate of arbitral tribunal on account of extraordinary delay in the present case Somewhat similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Chockalingam (supra). 8. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent in the decision in Yash with Constructions (P) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, suffice it to say, in the said case the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where there is absence of specific provision in respect of appointment of arbitrator in the arbitration agreement. In the instant case, admittedly, after 24-7-2013 the respondent has failed to appoint the presiding arbitrator. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the respondent is of no assistance to the respondent in the fact situation of the case. 9. The respondent has forfeited the right to appoint arbitrator. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Deep Trading Company v. Indian Oil Corporation and others, 2013(3) MPLJ (S.C.) 51 : (2013) 4 SCC 35 has held as follows : "20. Section 11(8) does not help the corporation at all in the fact situation. Firstly there is no qualification for the arbitrator prescribed in the agreement. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Deep Trading Company v. Indian Oil Corporation and others, 2013(3) MPLJ (S.C.) 51 : (2013) 4 SCC 35 has held as follows : "20. Section 11(8) does not help the corporation at all in the fact situation. Firstly there is no qualification for the arbitrator prescribed in the agreement. Secondly, to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator, it is rather necessary that some one other than an officer of the Corporation is appointed as arbitrator once the Corporation has forfeited its right to appoint the arbitrator under Clause 29 of the agreement." In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Deep Trading Company (supra) and to ensure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator as laid down in section 11(8) of the Act and also taking that the venue of the arbitration is Jabalpur, I deem it appropriate to appoint Mr. Justice S.C. Pandey, J. (retired) as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to pass an award as expeditiously as possible. 10. Accordingly, the arbitration case is disposed of. 11. C.C. as per rules.