JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. This is a petition filed under section 11(6) of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: 3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, which responded to an international bid for construction and development of 690 MW Hydro Electric Power Project located on river Chenab near Drabshalla District Kishtwar, J&K. After the bidding process, a Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued in favour of the petitioner on 31.05.2010. 4. It is stated that as per the Letter of Intent, a Special Purpose Vehicle was to be set up by the petitioner for proper execution of the project and, therefore, the petitioner was set up as a Special Purpose Vehicle to execute the project in question. 5. It is further stated that in accordance with the conditions of the Letter of Intent, the petitioner executed a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Power Development Department on 30.06.2010 at Jammu. This agreement was basically stated to be executed for purposes of development, finance, ownership, design, engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, operating and maintenance of the Hydro Electric Project of 690 MW on Build Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) basis. 6. Article 17 of the said agreement specifically provided that the agreement/contract was to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as also the laws of India, as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 7. It is stated that ever since the execution of the agreement (PPA), an amount of Rs. 1500/- crores has been pumped into the project by the petitioner. However, on account of callous attitude of the respondents, delay was occasioned in the execution of the project, causing a huge loss to the petitioner, giving rise to these disputes. 8. The genesis, causes and effect of the disputes have been elaborately dealt with in the present petition. 9. 1500/- crores has been pumped into the project by the petitioner. However, on account of callous attitude of the respondents, delay was occasioned in the execution of the project, causing a huge loss to the petitioner, giving rise to these disputes. 8. The genesis, causes and effect of the disputes have been elaborately dealt with in the present petition. 9. It is stated that whereas, initially as per the agreement, the arrangement between the parties was for a project capacity of 424.03 MW generated from the installed capacity of 690 MW with the design energy of 2658.85 M. Units, subsequently, after the experts of the petitioner studied the project and its various parameters, the petitioner had submitted an updated detailed project report to the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) Ministry of Power, Government of India, based upon which, request was made for enhancing the installed capacity of the project in question from 690 MW to 850 MW. 10. It is further stated that the Power Development Department of the State also communicated the approval for the enhancement of the installed capacity from 690 MW to 850 MW vide its order dated 26.10.2012. In furtherance of the subsequent development, it is stated that all clearances including the Techno Economic Clearance etc. was obtained by the petitioner for 850 MW project from the Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India and all this required massive investments from the banks, which was to be arranged from the banks and other private or public financial institutions. 11. Notwithstanding the above approvals and agreements, it is alleged that the State, which was otherwise required to provide land for the execution of the project within time, had not handed over the same in its entirety and no lease deed executed as was mandatorily required in terms of the agreement. 12. It is further alleged that the official respondents had failed to provide a proper working environment, which was conducive to the execution of the safe and peaceful project. On account of civil disturbances and law and order problem in and around the site and in the absence of pro-active cooperation from the State, it became difficult for the petitioner to execute the work. 13. On account of civil disturbances and law and order problem in and around the site and in the absence of pro-active cooperation from the State, it became difficult for the petitioner to execute the work. 13. It is stated that finally on account of the situations at the site and the threats received by even the Project Director, who was an expatriate from Indonesia, the company was forced to suspend all works at the site w.e.f., 11.07.2014. The final blow to the petitioner, came when the issues with regard to the Indus Water Treaty were raised in regard to the project in question inasmuch as River Chenab was covered by the said treaty. The petitioner, however, mentions in detail the various disputes, which the petitioner seeks to raise before the arbitral tribunal. 14. It is further stated that the dispute, which is the subject matter of controversy in the present petition, is covered in terms of Article 17.3 of the agreement and is required to be settled by reference to the arbitration by three arbitrators as per the mechanism as provided under Article 17.3.2 of the agreement whereby both the parties are required to nominate one arbitrator each and the third arbitrator is to be nominated by the two arbitrators nominated by the parties. 15. For facility of reference, Article 17.3.2 of the agreement is reproduced hereinbelow: “If the Dispute arises out of or in connection with any claims not covered in Article 17.3.1, such Dispute shall be settled by reference to Arbitration by three arbitrators. Each party shall appoint one Arbitrator and third shall be nominated by the said two arbitrators. The arbitration proceeding shall be governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. The venue of the arbitration shall be in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.” 16. The petitioner appears to have invoked the arbitration clause as can be seen from communication dated 15.04.2016 addressed to the Power Development Department of the Govt, of Jammu and Kashmir. In that regard, the petitioner proceeded to fulfil its own part of the obligation as per the arbitration clause and nominated Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice (Retired), Punjab and Haryana High Court its arbitrator. Request was, thus, made to the respondents to take steps for nominating their arbitrator for purposes of constituting a proper arbitral tribunal at the earliest, which request failed to elicit the desired response. Request was, thus, made to the respondents to take steps for nominating their arbitrator for purposes of constituting a proper arbitral tribunal at the earliest, which request failed to elicit the desired response. 17. It is in the background of the aforementioned facts that the petitioner seeks to invoke powers vested in this court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 for appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal. 18. In response, the State has taken a plea that the petitioner had in fact abandoned the work in question and failed to discharge his duties and obligations under the PPA. The petition, it was stated, was filed for malafide considerations for protecting the petitioners own interest. Clause 14.1 of the agreement is invoked in this regard. 19. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State, however, did not deny the existence of the arbitration clause nor was the receipt of the communication, invoking the arbitration clause denied. 20. The mechanism as provided in clause 17.3.2 of the agreement was not followed by the respondents and no arbitrator was appointed by them despite the expiry of thirty days from the receipt of notice. Failure on the part of the official respondents to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the prescribed procedure does entitle the petitioner to seek the appointment of an independent arbitrator in accordance with law as has been laid in Datar Switchgears Ltd. vs. Tata Finance Ltd. and anr., (2000) 8 SCC 151 and subsequently followed in M/s. Deep Trading Company vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors., AIR 2013 SC 1479 decided on 22.03.2013. 21. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State urged that instead of having an arbitral tribunal, a sole arbitrator, who is otherwise independent, be appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes. However, looking to the fact that the parties had agreed that the matter would be adjudicated upon by the arbitral tribunal and looking to the complexity and stakes involved, it is deemed appropriate that the matter be adjudicated only by an arbitral tribunal. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar, Chief Justice (retired), High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice (retired), Punjab and Haryana High Court shall act as arbitrators in the matter. Justice R.V. Raveendran, Judge (retired), Supreme Court of India, shall act as the presiding arbitrator. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar, Chief Justice (retired), High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice (retired), Punjab and Haryana High Court shall act as arbitrators in the matter. Justice R.V. Raveendran, Judge (retired), Supreme Court of India, shall act as the presiding arbitrator. The arbitrators shall enter upon the reference and adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties, details whereof are given in the petition, arising out of and in connection with the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 30.06.2010. Parties shall be at liberty to file detailed claims and counter claims before the arbitrators. The arbitrators would be entitled to fix their own-fee. 23. Disposed of accordingly.