JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - By way of instant petition filed under Section 11 read with sections 12 and 15 (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, amended by Act 3 of 2016, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to issue direction to the respondent to appoint impartial arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute inter-se parties. 2. Perusal of material available on record suggests that pursuant to notice inviting tender (Annexure P1), issued by the respondent for "display of advertisements at various bus-stands", petitioner applied for the work in question and it being lowest bidder, came to be awarded work as detailed hereinabove. Subsequently, agreement dated 3.6.2014 (Annexure P-2), came to be executed inter-se parties, whereby work of "display of advertisement in various bus-stands" in the State of Himachal Pradesh, came to be awarded in favour of the petitioner for the total consideration of Rs. 54,04,500/-. However, as a matter of fact, subsequently, dispute arose inter-se parties and as such, petitioner invoked clause-17 of the agreement, which provides that all disputes and differences arising out or in any manner touching this agreement including any dispute relating to interpretation of the agreement shall be referred to the Chief Executive Officer, Shimla, who shall be the sole arbitrator in this case. Perusal of communication dated 17.3.2017 (Annexure P-14) suggests that pursuant to aforesaid request having been made by the petitioner, Divisional Manager, H.P CT&BSM&DA, Tutikandi, Shimla, appointed the Chief Executive Officer, HPBSM&DA, Shimla-3, as an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute raised by the petitioner. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to appoint new impartial arbitrator in terms of amended arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act"). 3. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate, while inviting attention of this Court to Section 12 of the Act, contended that aforesaid provision of law stands amended by the Act 3 of 2016, whereby person having either direct or indirect connection or relationship or interest in any of the parties or in relation to the subject matter in dispute, cannot be appointed as an arbitrator and his/her appointment as arbitrator can be laid challenge. 4. 4. In the case at hand, as has been taken note above, though respondent has acceded to the request of the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator but in terms of agreement, Chief Executive Officer, has been appointed as an Arbitrator. It would be apt to reproduce Section 12 of the Act, herein below:- "12. Grounds for challenge.- (1) When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose in writing any circumstances ,- (a) Such as the existence either direct or indirect, of any past or present relationship with or interest in any of the parties or in relation to the subject-matter in dispute, whether financial, business, professional or other kind, which is likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality; and (b) Which are likely to affect his ability to devote sufficient time to the arbitration and in particular his ability to complete the entire arbitration within a period of twelve months. Explanation 1. -The grounds stated in the Fifth Schedule shall guide in determining whether circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an arbitrator. Explanation 2. - the disclosure shall be made by such person in the form specified in the Sixth Schedule.] (2) An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall, without delay, disclose to the parties in writing any circumstances referred to in sub-section (1) unless they have already been informed of them by him. (3) An arbitrator may be challenged only if- (a) circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality, or (b) he does not possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties. (4) A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made. (4) A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made. [(5) Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject-matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator: Provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of this sub-section by an express agreement in writing.]" After having carefully perused amendment made in Section 12 reproduced supra, this court finds considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that Chief Executive Officer, could not be appointed as an Arbitrator for the reason that he has a direct control over the day to day affairs/working of the respondent-authority. 5. Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate, while fairly conceding to the aforesaid proposition of law contended that there is no specific challenge laid to the appointment of Chief Executive Officer, who came to be appointed as Arbitrator pursuant to the request having been made by the petitioner and as such, present petition deserves to be dismissed. Mr. Sharma, further contended that as per agreement arrived at inter-se parties, Chief Executive Officer, could only be appointed as Arbitrator and as such, there is no illegality if any, committed by the respondent authority while appointing the Chief Executive Officer as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute inter-se parties. 6. Having carefully perused the aforesaid provision of law, this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Chief Executive Officer, could not be appointed as Arbitrator and some independent person, who has no direct or indirect control over the affairs of the respondent authority ought to have been appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute inter-se parties. 7. Hon''ble Apex Court in Volestalpine Schienen GMBH vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2017) 4 SCC 665 , has held as under:- "14. From the stand taken by the respective parties and noted above, it becomes clear that the moot question is as to whether panel of arbitrators prepared by the Respondent violates the amended provisions of Section 12 of the Act. From the stand taken by the respective parties and noted above, it becomes clear that the moot question is as to whether panel of arbitrators prepared by the Respondent violates the amended provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Subsection (1) and Sub-section (5) of Section 12 as well as Seventh Schedule to the Act which are relevant for our purposes, may be reproduced below: 8. (i) for sub-section (1), the following Sub-section shall be substituted, namely- (1) When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose in writing any circumstances- (a) such as the existence either direct or indirect, of any past or present relationship with or interest in any of the parties or in relation to the subject-matter in dispute, whether financial, business, professional or other kind, which is likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality; and (b) which are likely to affect his ability to devote sufficient time to the arbitration and in particular his ability to complete the entire arbitration within a period of twelve months. Explanation 1. - The grounds stated in the Fifth Schedule shall guide in determining whether circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an arbitrator. Explanation 2. - The disclosure shall be made by such person in the form specified in the Sixth Schedule.; (ii) after Sub-section (4), the following Subsection shall be inserted, namely- (5) Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject-matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator: Provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of this Sub-section by an express agreement in writing. (emphasis supplied) The Seventh Schedule Arbitrator''s relationship with the parties or counsel 1. The arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party. 2. The arbitrator currently represents or advises one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties. 3. The arbitrator currently represents the lawyer or law firm acting as counsel for one of the parties. 4. The arbitrator is a lawyer in the same law firm which is representing one of the parties. 5. 2. The arbitrator currently represents or advises one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties. 3. The arbitrator currently represents the lawyer or law firm acting as counsel for one of the parties. 4. The arbitrator is a lawyer in the same law firm which is representing one of the parties. 5. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence, in an affiliate of one of the parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the matters in dispute in the arbitration. 6. The arbitrator''s law firm had a previous but terminated involvement in the case without the arbitrator being involved himself or herself. 7. The arbitrator''s law firm currently has a significant commercial relationship with one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties. 8. The arbitrator regularly advises the appointing party or an affiliate of the appointing party even though neither the arbitrator nor his or her firm derives a significant financial income therefrom. 9. The arbitrator has a close family relationship with one of the parties and in the case of companies with the persons in the management and controlling the company. 10. A close family member of the arbitrator has a significant financial interest in one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties. 11. The arbitrator is a legal representative of an entity that is a party in the arbitration. 12. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence in one of the parties. 13. The arbitrator has a significant financial interest in one of the parties or the outcome of the case. 14. The arbitrator regularly advises the appointing party or an affiliate of the appointing party, and the arbitrator or his or her firm derives a significant financial income therefrom. Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute 15. The arbitrator has given legal advice or provided an expert opinion on the dispute to a party or an affiliate of one of the parties. 16. The arbitrator has previous involvement in the case. Arbitrator''s direct or indirect interest in the dispute. 17. The arbitrator holds shares, either directly or indirectly, in one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties that is privately held. 18. 16. The arbitrator has previous involvement in the case. Arbitrator''s direct or indirect interest in the dispute. 17. The arbitrator holds shares, either directly or indirectly, in one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties that is privately held. 18. A close family member of the arbitrator has a significant financial interest in the outcome of the dispute. 19. The arbitrator or a close family member of the arbitrator has a close relationship with a third party who may be liable to recourse on the part of the unsuccessful party in the dispute. Explanation 1. - The term "close family member" refers to a spouse, sibling, child, parent or life partner. Explanation 2. - The term "affiliate" encompasses all companies in one group of companies including the parent company. Explanation 3. - For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that it may be the practice in certain specific kinds of arbitration, such as maritime or commodities arbitration, to draw arbitrators from a small, specialized pool. If in such fields it is the custom and practice for parties frequently to appoint the same arbitrator in different cases, this is a relevant fact to be taken into account while applying the Rules set out above. (emphasis supplied) 15. It is a well known fact that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, inter alia, commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards etc. It is also an accepted position that while enacting the said Act, basic structure of UNCITRAL Model Law was kept in mind. This became necessary in the wake of globalization and the adoption of policy of liberalisation of Indian economy by the Government of India in the early 90s. This model law of UNCITRAL provides the framework in order to achieve, to the maximum possible extent, uniform approach to the international commercial arbitration. Aim is to achieve convergence in arbitration law and avoid conflicting or varying provisions in the arbitration Acts enacted by various countries. Due to certain reasons, working of this Act witnessed some unpleasant developments and need was felt to smoothen out the rough edges encountered thereby. The Law Commission examined various shortcomings in the working of this Act and in its first Report, i.e., 176th Report made various suggestions for amending certain provisions of the Act. Due to certain reasons, working of this Act witnessed some unpleasant developments and need was felt to smoothen out the rough edges encountered thereby. The Law Commission examined various shortcomings in the working of this Act and in its first Report, i.e., 176th Report made various suggestions for amending certain provisions of the Act. This exercise was again done by the Law Commission of India in its Report No. 246 in August, 2004 suggesting sweeping amendments touching upon various facets and acting upon most of these recommendations, Arbitration Amendment Act of 2015 was passed which came into effect from October 23, 2015. 16. Apart from other amendments, Section 12 was also amended and the amended provision has already been reproduced above. This amendment is also based on the recommendation of the Law Commission which specifically dealt with the issue of ''neutrality of arbitrators'' and a discussion in this behalf is contained in paras 53 to 60 and we would like to reproduce the entire discussion hereinbelow: Neutrality Of Arbitrators 53. It is universally accepted that any quasi-judicial process, including the arbitration process, must be in accordance with principles of natural justice. In the context of arbitration, neutrality of arbitrators, viz. their independence and impartiality, is critical to the entire process. 54. In the Act, the test for neutrality is set out in Section 12(3) which provides- 12 (3) An arbitrator may be challenged only if- (a) circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality..." 55. The Act does not lay down any other conditions to identify the "circumstances" which give rise to "justifiable doubts", and it is clear that there can be many such circumstances and situations. The test is not whether, given the circumstances, there is any actual bias for that is setting the bar too high; but, whether the circumstances in question give rise to any justifiable apprehensions of bias. 56. The limits of this provision has been tested in the Indian Supreme Court in the context of contracts with State entities naming particular persons/designations (associated with that entity) as a potential arbitrator. 56. The limits of this provision has been tested in the Indian Supreme Court in the context of contracts with State entities naming particular persons/designations (associated with that entity) as a potential arbitrator. It appears to be settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court (See Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Puri vs. Gangaram Chhapolia, 1984 (3) SCC 627 ; Secretary to Government Transport Department, Madras vs. Munusamy Mudaliar, 1988 (Supp) SCC 651; International Authority of India vs. K.D. Bali and Anr. 1988 (2) SCC 360 ; S. Rajan vs. State of Kerala 1992 (3) SCC 608 ; Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals vs. Indo Swiss Synthetics Germ Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1996 (1) SCC 54 ; Union of India vs. M.P. Gupta (2004) 10 SCC 504 ; Ace Pipeline Contract Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2007 (5) SCC 304 ) that arbitration agreements in government contracts which provide for arbitration by a serving employee of the department, are valid and enforceable. While the Supreme Court, in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Raja Transport (P) Ltd. (2009) 8 SCC 520 carved out a minor exception in situations when the arbitrator "was the controlling or dealing authority in regard to the subject contract or if he is a direct subordinate (as contrasted from an officer of an inferior rank in some other department) to the officer whose decision is the subject matter of the dispute", and this exception was used by the Supreme Court in Denel Proprietary Ltd. vs. Govt. of India, Ministry of AIR 2012 SC 817 and Bipromasz Bipron Trading SA vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 384 , to appoint an independent arbitrator Under Section 11, this is not enough. 57. The balance between procedural fairness and binding nature of these contracts, appears to have been tilted in favour of the latter by the Supreme Court, and the Commission believes the present position of law is far from satisfactory. Since the principles of impartiality and independence cannot be discarded at any stage of the proceedings, specifically at the stage of constitution of the arbitral tribunal, it would be incongruous to say that party autonomy can be exercised in complete disregard of these principles-even if the same has been agreed prior to the disputes having arisen between the parties. Since the principles of impartiality and independence cannot be discarded at any stage of the proceedings, specifically at the stage of constitution of the arbitral tribunal, it would be incongruous to say that party autonomy can be exercised in complete disregard of these principles-even if the same has been agreed prior to the disputes having arisen between the parties. There are certain minimum levels of independence and impartiality that should be required of the arbitral process regardless of the parties'' apparent agreement. A sensible law cannot, for instance, permit appointment of an arbitrator who is himself a party to the dispute, or who is employed by (or similarly dependent on) one party, even if this is what the parties agreed. The Commission hastens to add that Mr. PK Malhotra, the ex officio member of the Law Commission suggested having an exception for the State, and allow State parties to appoint employee arbitrators. The Commission is of the opinion that, on this issue, there cannot be any distinction between State and non-State parties. The concept of party autonomy cannot be stretched to a point where it negates the very basis of having impartial and independent adjudicators for resolution of disputes. In fact, when the party appointing an adjudicator is the State, the duty to appoint an impartial and independent adjudicator is that much more onerous-and the right to natural justice cannot be said to have been waived only on the basis of a "prior" agreement between the parties at the time of the contract and before arising of the disputes. 58. Large scale amendments have been suggested to address this fundamental issue of neutrality of arbitrators, which the Commission believes is critical to the functioning of the arbitration process in India. In particular, amendments have been proposed to Sections 11, 12 and 14 of the Act. 59. The Commission has proposed the requirement of having specific disclosures by the arbitrator, at the stage of his possible appointment, regarding existence of any relationship or interest of any kind which is likely to give rise to justifiable doubts. The Commission has proposed the incorporation of the Fourth Schedule, which has drawn from the Red and Orange lists of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, and which would be treated as a "guide" to determine whether circumstances exist which give rise to such justifiable doubts. The Commission has proposed the incorporation of the Fourth Schedule, which has drawn from the Red and Orange lists of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, and which would be treated as a "guide" to determine whether circumstances exist which give rise to such justifiable doubts. On the other hand, in terms of the proposed Section 12(5) of the Act and the Fifth Schedule which incorporates the categories from the Red list of the IBA Guidelines (as above), the person proposed to be appointed as an arbitrator shall be ineligible to be so appointed, notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary. In the event such an ineligible person is purported to be appointed as an arbitrator, he shall be de jure deemed to be unable to perform his functions, in terms of the proposed explanation to Section 14. Therefore, while the disclosure is required with respect to a broader list of categories (as set out in the Fourth Schedule, and as based on the Red and Orange lists of the IBA Guidelines), the ineligibility to be appointed as an arbitrator (and the consequent de jure inability to so act) follows from a smaller and more serious sub-set of situations (as set out in the Fifth Schedule, and as based on the Red list of the IBA Guidelines). 60. The Commission, however, feels that real and genuine party autonomy must be respected, and, in certain situations, parties should be allowed to waive even the categories of ineligibility as set in the proposed Fifth Schedule. This could be in situations of family arbitrations or other arbitrations where a person commands the blind faith and trust of the parties to the dispute, despite the existence of objective "justifiable doubts" regarding his independence and impartiality. To deal with such situations, the Commission has proposed the proviso to Section 12(5), where parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of the proposed Section 12(5) by an express agreement in writing. In all/all other cases, the general Rule in the proposed Section 12(5) must be followed. In the event the High Court is approached in connection with appointment of an arbitrator, the Commission has proposed seeking the disclosure in terms of Section 12(1) and in which context the High Court or the designate is to have "due regard" to the contents of such disclosure in appointing the arbitrator. In the event the High Court is approached in connection with appointment of an arbitrator, the Commission has proposed seeking the disclosure in terms of Section 12(1) and in which context the High Court or the designate is to have "due regard" to the contents of such disclosure in appointing the arbitrator. (emphasis supplied) 17. We may put a note of clarification here. Though, the Law Commission discussed the aforesaid aspect under the heading "Neutrality of Arbitrators", the focus of discussion was on impartiality and independence of the arbitrators which has relation to or bias towards one of the parties. In the field of international arbitration, neutrality is generally related to the nationality of the arbitrator. In international sphere, the ''appearance of neutrality'' is considered equally important, which means that an arbitrator is neutral if his nationality is different from that of the parties. However, that is not the aspect which is being considered and the term ''neutrality'' used is relatable to impartiality and independence of the arbitrators, without any bias towards any of the parties. In fact, the term ''neutrality of arbitrators'' is commonly used in this context as well. 18. Keeping in mind the afore-quoted recommendation of the Law Commission, with which spirit, Section 12 has been amended by the Amendment Act, 2015, it is manifest that the main purpose for amending the provision was to provide for neutrality of arbitrators. In order to achieve this, Sub-section (5) of Section 12 lays down that notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule, he shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. In such an eventuality, i.e., when the arbitration Clause finds foul with the amended provisions extracted above, the appointment of an arbitrator would be beyond pale of the arbitration agreement, empowering the court to appoint such arbitrator(s) as may be permissible. That would be the effect of non-obstante Clause contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 12 and the other party cannot insist on appointment of the arbitrator in terms of arbitration agreement." 8. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been categorically held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that main purpose for amending the provision was to provide for neutrality of arbitrators. That would be the effect of non-obstante Clause contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 12 and the other party cannot insist on appointment of the arbitrator in terms of arbitration agreement." 8. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been categorically held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that main purpose for amending the provision was to provide for neutrality of arbitrators. Hon''ble Apex Court has further held that in order to achieve the neutrality, as referred above, Sub-section (5) of Section 12 lays down that notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person, whose relationship with the parties or counsel or subject matter of dispute falls under any of the categories specified in the schedule, he shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. 9. In the case at hand, respondent has nowhere disputed the claim of the petitioner that Chief Executive Officer has direct control over the day to day affairs of respondent authority and as such, in view of the amending provision of law, he could not be appointed as an Arbitrator and as such, his appointment deserves to be quashed and-set-aside. 10. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon''ble apex Court, communication dated 17.3.2014 (Annexure P-14), whereby C.E.O. came to be appointed as an Arbitrator, is quashed and set-aside and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in question. He is requested to enter into reference within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, petitioner is directed to file claim petition within a period of three weeks. Reply be filed by the respondents within a period of three weeks. Pleadings, including rejoinder and counter-claims shall also be completed by the parties within a period of eight weeks after entering into reference by the Arbitrator. It shall be open to the Arbitrator to determine his own procedure with the consent of the parties. Needles to say, Arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fee as prescribed under the Act. Award shall be made strictly as per the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, within six months. Needless to add that the Arbitrator shall pass a speaking order. 11. Needles to say, Arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fee as prescribed under the Act. Award shall be made strictly as per the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, within six months. Needless to add that the Arbitrator shall pass a speaking order. 11. A copy of this order shall be made available to the Arbitrator, named above, by the Registry of this Court, within a period of two weeks, enabling him to take steps for commencement of the arbitration proceedings. 12. The petition is disposed of.