JUDGMENT : The Court : The defence taken by the State to this request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. It is the admitted position that the value of the contract exceeded Rs.1 crore. It is also admitted by the petitioner now that the standard terms appended to the petition are not the standard terms governing the contract. However, the petitioner claims that since the arbitration clause contained in the general conditions appended to the affidavit-in-opposition indicate that the appointing authority would be the chief engineer and it was the chief engineer whose authority was invoked by the petitioner herein, the failure on the part of the chief engineer to appoint the arbitrator entitles the petitioner to request the Chief Justice or her designate to now constitute the tribunal. The copy of the general conditions containing the arbitration clause appended to the State’s affidavit shows clause 25 to have been deleted by crossing it out across its face, though no signature or initials of any person appears to endorse such deletion. The petitioner contends that if the arbitration clause stood deleted from the contract between the parties, clause 3.08 of the abridged notice inviting tender (NIT) and clause 3.11 thereof would be otiose. Clauses 3.08 and 3.11 of the abridged NIT read as follows: “3.08 No claim for escalation in prices due to any reason whatsoever will be paid. However, if Department decides to pay escalation on an agreed formulae (sic. formula) as a special case then the contractor will loose (sic. lose) the right of going to Arbitration in respect of escalation. 3.11 There shall be no provision for settlement of dispute through Arbitration and Clause No.25 of W.B. Form No.2911(ii) shall stand deleted as per G.O. No.927-R/Adt. dt.27.06.06 of the Joint Secretary, P.W. (Roads) Deptt.” Clause 3.11 refers to a government order of June 27, 2006. A copy of such government order has been included in the affidavit-in-reply. The government order pertains, inter alia, to contracts for works of value in excess of Rs.1 crore and generally indicates that contracts of such value entered into by the PWD Roads) of the State would not be governed by any arbitration clause. A copy of such government order has been included in the affidavit-in-reply. The government order pertains, inter alia, to contracts for works of value in excess of Rs.1 crore and generally indicates that contracts of such value entered into by the PWD Roads) of the State would not be governed by any arbitration clause. The relevant government order in its initial paragraph and first clause may be noticed: “Contracts for works of value above Rs.1 crore, generally, contain provision for settlement of disputes through Arbitration. W.B.Form No.2911(ii), which is mostly used for execution of contracts for works of such magnitude, contains the said provision in Clause No.25. However, in some cases, provision for Arbitration is excluded for works of value above Rs.1 crore as per decision of the Government. It is observed on certain occasions that follow-up actions are not properly taken in such cases leaving room for litigation. Under the circumstances, concerned officers of the P.W.(Roads)Directt. may be instructed to strictly adhere to the following instructions for works-(i) of value above Rs.1 crore and (ii) for which decision has been taken to exclude Arbitration provision: 1. It must be clearly stated in the abridged NIT as well as in the concerned NIT that there shall be no provision for settlement of disputes through Arbitration and Clause No.25 of W.B.Form No.2911(ii) shall stand deleted.” It is evident from the government order that arbitration agreements were, after the publication of the government order, not to govern contracts entered into by the State PWD(Roads) if they were of value in excess of Rs.1 crore. Even in cases of contracts not exceeding Rs.1 crore in value, a conscious decision could be taken to not incorporate the arbitration agreement. It is, therefore, to be assessed as to whether it is necessary for the express deletion of the arbitration clause from the standard terms governing a State PWD contract, complete with signatures of the parties, if the contract is of value in excess of Rs.1 crore and has been executed subsequent to the government order of June 27, 2006. Clause 3.11 of the abridged NIT specifically refers to the government order and the government order recognises that contracts of value in excess of Rs.1 crore would contain no arbitration clause. Clause 3.11 of the abridged NIT specifically refers to the government order and the government order recognises that contracts of value in excess of Rs.1 crore would contain no arbitration clause. In such perspective, whether or not the arbitration clause has been physically deleted from the general conditions appended to a contract of value in excess of Rs.1 crore, is quite immaterial. The government order is in the nature of instructions to the department. The specific deletion of the arbitration clause in such a case, with the signatures of the parties to the contract accompanying the deletion, was suggested as a safety measure to leave no manner of doubt as to its deletion. However, if the clause has not been physically deleted (where physical deletion involves the striking out of the clause accompanied by the signatures of the parties), when the general conditions otherwise carry a reference to the government order of June 27, 2006 and such order excludes arbitration clauses in agreements of value in excess of Rs.1 crore, it cannot be suggested that the arbitration clause would still be operative. Merely because clause 3.08 refers to the arbitration clause cannot undo the effect of clause 3.11 read with the government order of June 27, 2006. It has, after all, to be appreciated that the general conditions as contained in the abridged NIT would cover all situations. In a situation where the contract is of value below Rs.1 crore, clause 3.08 would be effective and clause 3.11 would not affect the validity of the arbitration clause. In cases where the value of the contract exceeds Rs.1 crore, clause 3.08 would simply not apply. Since it is evident that, in view of clause 3.11 of the abridged NIT and the government order of June 27, 2006 referred thereto, there is no arbitration clause that governs the matrix contract in this case, the present request under Section 11 of the said Act of 1996 has to be rejected and the petitioning contractor has to be left free to pursue the remedies available to it in accordance with law. AP No. 1527 of 2014 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.