ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This application has been filed by M/s. Kamal Autotech Private Limited through its Director Mr. Aditya Kasliwal under Sections 11(6) and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for appointment of an independent arbitrator to resolve its dispute with non-applicant Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO). 2. The applicant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Kamal & Company Premises, Opposite G.P.O., M.I. Road, Jaipur. The applicant is engaged in the business of developing body parts for vehicles, providing services as well as selling of vehicles and vehicle body parts etc. The applicant-company applied to the non-applicants for allotment of a plot for establishment its body workshop and service centre. The non-applicants accepted the application of the applicant and allotted a plot of land ad-measuring 4834.35 sq. metres bearing number SP-2033 (B) at Ramchandrapura EPIP, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur under Rule 3(w) of the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979(for short 'the Rules of 1979') vide allotment letter dated 14.12.2011 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Letter of allotment was also accompanied by site plan. Possession of the aforesaid plot was handed over to the applicant by the non-applicants on 09.04.2012. The applicant later discovered that there were technical problems in the site plan as the dimension and particulars mentioned in the site plan were different from the land that actually existed on ground. The applicant, therefore, informed the non-applicant about the said infirmity in the site plan vide its letter dated 26.12.2011. The non-applicants, only after lapse of eight months, issued revised site plan by making substantial changes therein and considerable reduction in the set back area vide its letter dated 31.08.2012. All this delayed the construction work. It was thereafter that lease agreement was executed between the parties on 27.09.2012, which was registered on 05.12.2012 before Sub Registrar-I, Sanganer, Jaipur. The applicant paid a substantial part of the lease amount for the entire term of 99 years. As per the terms of allotment letter dated 14.12.2011 and lease agreement dated 27.09.2012, the applicant-company was required to complete construction within a period of two years and commence production within a period of three years from the date of possession. 3. Ms. The applicant paid a substantial part of the lease amount for the entire term of 99 years. As per the terms of allotment letter dated 14.12.2011 and lease agreement dated 27.09.2012, the applicant-company was required to complete construction within a period of two years and commence production within a period of three years from the date of possession. 3. Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that owing to the fact that previously issued site plan had to be revised by the non-applicants, which took as long as eight months, the applicant could commence the construction work only thereafter in accordance with the revised approved site plan, leaving proper set back area. The non-applicants vide letter dated 08.11.2012 issued to the applicant-company sought details about the construction carried on and amount invested by the applicant-company on the subject land. The non-applicants vide the same letter also informed that the applicant-company has to complete the construction activity by 13.12.2013 as per the term 6 of Letter of Intent and it was required to invest Rs. 21.89 crores as per term 9 of Letter of Intent. The non-applicants also issued a reminder letter dated 21.05.2013 to the applicant-company seeking details about the investment made in the said project by 30.04.2013. It was also stated in that letter that if the applicant fails to complete the construction activities by 31.05.2013 then the non-applicant-corporation will initiate actions/proceedings as stipulated in the Rules of 1979. The applicant, in response to the aforesaid letters dated 08.11.2015 and 21.05.2013, informed the non-applicants vide letter dated 30.05.2013 that the construction work at the subject site can only be started after the approval of sanctioned site plans, therefore, the date of commencement of construction can only be considered from 31.08.2012. 4. Learned counsel argued that the applicant-company thereafter requested the non-applicants for extension of time period for completion of construction work and for commencement of industrial unit vide letter dated 05.06.2013. The non-applicant-corporation vide letter dated 15.07.2013 declined such request and requested the applicant-company to complete the construction work and commence the industrial unit by 13.12.2013. The non-applicants then served upon the applicant notice dated 17.07.2013 and thereafter, show cause notice dated 20.08.2014, to which the applicant submitted reply dated 01.10.2014. The non-applicant-corporation vide letter dated 15.07.2013 declined such request and requested the applicant-company to complete the construction work and commence the industrial unit by 13.12.2013. The non-applicants then served upon the applicant notice dated 17.07.2013 and thereafter, show cause notice dated 20.08.2014, to which the applicant submitted reply dated 01.10.2014. The non-applicants, ignoring that reply, again served upon the applicant a show cause notice dated 09.04.2015 threatening the applicant to cancel its allotment and terminate the lease deed. In these circumstances, the applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for interim measures before Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, which vide order dated 28.05.2015 passed ad-interim stay order in favour of the applicant-company for maintaining status quo regarding the subject property. The applicant-company, in view of Article 3(h) of the Lease Agreement dated 27.09.2012 executed between the parties, served a notice dated 19.06.2015 upon the non-applicants, which was received by them on 22.06.2015, calling upon the non-applicant No. 2 to make appointment of sole arbitrator, i.e. District Collector, Jaipur as per the said clause. However, despite lapse of 30 days, the non-applicant No. 2 failed to respond to the request of the applicant for making reference to the arbitrator. The applicant then vide representation dated 09.07.2015 requested the District Collector, Jaipur to enter upon the reference for adjudication of all the disputes that have arisen between the parties. However, the District Collector, Jaipur also failed to respond to the said representation. Thereafter, the applicant vide notice dated 03.10.2015 called upon the District Collector, Jaipur either to enter upon the reference within a period of seven days or else, it shall be constrained to file an application under Section 11 of the Act seeking substitution of arbitrator before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the non-applicants having not referred the dispute to the arbitrator as per agreed procedure between the parties, forfeited their right to make to reference now. This Court has to, therefore, make reference of the dispute to sole independent arbitrator. 5. Mr. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the non-applicants having not referred the dispute to the arbitrator as per agreed procedure between the parties, forfeited their right to make to reference now. This Court has to, therefore, make reference of the dispute to sole independent arbitrator. 5. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposed the application and argued that allotment of land was made to the applicant as per condition No. 6 of the allotment letter and the lease deed, according to which the applicant-company was required to complete construction of more than 20% of the total land within six months, but as per the site inspection report dated 19.11.2013 given by Senior Draftsman Mr. Rakesh Vyas, only 13.99% construction was found there. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to the applicant-company. The land was allotted to the applicant-company on concessional rates as per Rule 3(w) of the Rules of 1979, a perusal of which reveals that in the allotment letter and lease deed both there is specific provision that the applicant-company has to invest certain amount and also to start manufacturing/commercial production within the prescribed period and no concession shall be given for the same. Reference is made to Letter of Intent dated 14.12.2011 wherein it was clearly stated that the applicant-company would be required to complete the construction and start commercial activity within two years from the date of allotment as per their consent letter. If the applicant fails to start commercial production within two years, difference of highest auction rate and allotment rate shall be recovered from the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicants although has not denied the fact of issuance of revised and amended site plan dated 31.08.2012 to the applicant, but he submitted that the applicant had to nevertheless start construction work after leaving proper set back and the applicant company was bound to complete the construction and also start commercial production as per prescribed conditions, rules and sub-rules of the allotment letter and registered lease deed. No right accrues to the applicant company for claiming any concession for the same. Condition No. 6 of the Letter of Intent dated 14.12.2011 provides that for purpose of construction would mean coverage of at least 20% of the plot area with a pucca structure where roof has been built up. No right accrues to the applicant company for claiming any concession for the same. Condition No. 6 of the Letter of Intent dated 14.12.2011 provides that for purpose of construction would mean coverage of at least 20% of the plot area with a pucca structure where roof has been built up. It was, therefore, that the non-applicants issued show cause notice dated 09.04.2015 to the applicant as per the Rules of 1979. It is, therefore, prayed that application of the applicant be dismissed. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the averments of the application and reply thereto. Evidently there can be no gain saying the fact that there exists a live dispute between the parties which is required to be resolved. There is also no dispute that Article 3(h) of the Lease Agreement dated 27.09.2012 provides for reference of dispute to arbitrator, which reads as under: "3(h) Every dispute, difference or questions touching or arising out or in respect of this agreement or the subject matter thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Collector of the district wherein the lease plot is situated or any person appointed by him, the decision of such arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties." 8. The applicant in para 7(xv) of the application has specifically pleaded that it, in terms of Article 3(h) of the Lease Agreement dated 27.09.2012, served 15 days' notice upon the non-applicants thereby calling upon non-applicant No. 2 to make appointment of sole arbitrator, i.e. District Collector, Jaipur as per the said clause, but despite lapse of more than 30 days, non-applicant No. 2 failed to respond to the request of the applicant. It has further been pleaded in Para 7(xvi) of the application that the applicant also requested the District Collector, Jaipur vide its letter dated 03.10.2015 to either enter upon the reference within a period of seven days or else, it will be constrained to file an application under Section 11 of the Act before this Court seeking substitution of arbitrator. However, the District Collector, Jaipur also failed to respond to said notice. Although a detailed reply to the present application has been filed by the non-applicants, but there is no dispute to the fact of service of notice/letter dated 19.06.2015, which was received by non-applicant No. 2 on 22.06.2015. However, the District Collector, Jaipur also failed to respond to said notice. Although a detailed reply to the present application has been filed by the non-applicants, but there is no dispute to the fact of service of notice/letter dated 19.06.2015, which was received by non-applicant No. 2 on 22.06.2015. The arbitration Clause, referred to above, agreed to by both the parties, satisfies the requirement of Section 7 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 provides that subject to subsection (6), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators. Sub-section (6) of Section 11 provides that where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties, (a) a party fails to act as required under that procedure; or (b) the parties, or the two appointed arbitrators, fail to reach an agreement expected of them under that procedure, a party may request the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court or any person or institution designated by such Court, to take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provides other means for securing the appointment. Clearly, in the present case, despite service of notice by the applicant, the non-applicants have failed to act as per the procedure agreed between the parties and therefore, they have forfeited their right to make reference of the dispute to the arbitrator named in the agreement, i.e. District Collector, Jaipur and now, it is for this Court to appoint an independent sole arbitrator. 9. In view of aforesaid, present application deserves to succeed and the same is hereby allowed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Bhargava (Retd.), 20/46, Ambedkar Marg, Renu Path, Mansarover, Jaipur (Mobile No. 9414044461 and Telephone No. 0141-2390304) is hereby appointed as an independent sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. Payment of the cost of arbitration proceedings and the arbitration fees shall be made as per the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2009, of this Court. 10. A copy of this order be sent to Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Bhargava (Retd.), 20/46, Ambedkar Marg, Renu Path, Mansarover, Jaipur (Mobile No. 9414044461 and Telephone No. 0141-2390304).