JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner sought reference of the dispute arising out of Agreement No. 2F2 of 2007-08 executed between the parties for construction of residual work of Earthen Dam from 0.00 M to 2150M under Garhi Reservoir Scheme in Tandwa Block under District Chatra to an independent Arbitrator. Notice for appointment of an Arbitrator was issued on 09.09.2017 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Hazaribag (Annexure-13) containing the detail description of the contentious issue between the parties which has gave rise to an arbitable dispute fit for being referred for adjudication by way of an arbitration proceeding under Clause 23 of the agreement. The agreement is at Annexure-1. At page 48 of the said agreement, clause 23 has been struck off in pen. Endorsement has been made by the side to the effect that it has been deleted, by the Executive Engineer, Investigation and Project Preparation Division, Hazaribag with whom the agreement was executed by the Contractor. 3. Respondent State in its counter affidavit have taken a specific legal plea at para 30 that clause 23 has been deleted in the said agreement, which is duly signed by the petitioner as well the Executive Engineer on the day of signing of the agreement. The arbitration clause was deleted vide gazette notification dated 13.11.1992 bearing no. 6113(s) issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar and stood adopted by the State of Jharkhand after its creation. Other grounds on merit have also been made citing different clauses of the agreement. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent State has at the outset distinguished the case of the petitioner in Arbitration Application Nos. 32 of 2017 and 38 of 2017 wherein this Court had appointed an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in view of the existence of Clause 23 containing the arbitration clause in the respective agreement therein. He submits that in these agreements Clause 23 was not struck off while entering into the agreement though Respondents had relied upon the gazette notification of 13.11.1992 to object the prayer. However, this Court had overruled the objection vide order dated 22.11.2018 and 6.12.2018 passed in respective arbitration applications following the ratio rendered in the case of Lakeshwari Builders Pvt. Ltd. -vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in , (2006) 4 JLJR 148 (HC). However, this Court had overruled the objection vide order dated 22.11.2018 and 6.12.2018 passed in respective arbitration applications following the ratio rendered in the case of Lakeshwari Builders Pvt. Ltd. -vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in , (2006) 4 JLJR 148 (HC). As such the requirement of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 in the present case is not satisfied. Therefore, petition may be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Lakeshwari Builders (supra) in support of the prayer. However he has not disputed that clause 23 of the agreement was struck off at the time of entering of the agreement between the parties in the instant case. 6. Having considered the aforesaid legal grounds raised, this Court is of the firm view that in the absence of an arbitration clause in particular in the agreement in question, petitioner does not have the locus to seek reference of the dispute to an independent arbitrator by order of this Court. As such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly the instant application is dismissed. However, remedy as permissible in law before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction is open for the petitioner.