JUDGMENT : The parties, after completion of the tendering process, have entered into the contract for the following works:- I. Construction of chain link fencing around various structures of filtration plant premises at Takenwari for WSS Khan, Mohalla/Dar Mohalla Takenwari, under the ARWSP Phase-IV for a total cost of Rs.7,66,632/- vide allotment No.10528-30 dated 13th of February, 2007; II. Construction of 0.10 MGD Rapid Sand Filtration Plant at Takenwari, including electrical/mechanical working for WSS Takenwari/Khan Mohalla/Dar Mohalla, under the ARWSP Phase-IV at a cost of Rs.19.94 lacs vide allotment No.9223-25 dated 26th of March, 2007; and III. Construction of 25000 gallons capacity RCC clear water sump-cum-pump house for WSS Takenwaripora-Dar Mohalla/Khan Mohalla at Rs.16,54,432/- vide allotment No.6159-62 dated 3rd of November, 2010. 2. After the execution of the aforesaid works, the dispute arose between the parties with regard to non-payment of all the dues, which constrained the petitioner to file a writ petition before this Court, being OWP No.873/2014, which petition, upon consideration by this Court, came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 24th of July, 2015, with a direction to the respondents/non-applicants herein to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner. Since the respondents/non-applicants herein did not comply with the terms of the judgment aforesaid, the petitioner was filed a contempt petition, being CPSW No.745/2015, which, too, came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of judgment dated 26th of October, 2016, directing the respondents/non-applicants herein to consider release of the amount to the tune of Rs.5.24 lacs + Rs. 19.94 lacs and Rs. 16.54,432/- in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the contempt petition, the Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Division, Ganderbal/Srinagar, passed an order dated 20th of January, 2017, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been considered and rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner, through his counsel, served a notice dated 8th of February, 2017, to the respondents with reference to his claim. This notice was replied by the respondents on 22nd of April, 2017, wherein they denied the contentions raised by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner served another legal notice through is counsel dated 31st of March, 2017, to the respondents calling upon them to appoint an arbitrator in the matter for the amicable settlement of the dispute that has arose between the parties. Subsequently, the petitioner served another legal notice through is counsel dated 31st of March, 2017, to the respondents calling upon them to appoint an arbitrator in the matter for the amicable settlement of the dispute that has arose between the parties. However, the respondents, vide letter dated 27th of April, 2017, have declined the request of the petitioner for the appointment of an arbitrator in the matter. 3. In their objections, filed in opposition to the instant application, the respondents have, while denying the averments made by the applicant in his application, at paragraph Nos. 3 and 4, stated as under:- “3. That as per the findings of the committee report as detailed above, the petitioner has no claim whatsoever against the department and in fact the petitioner has material outstanding in his name, which is recoverable from him and the petitioner has accordingly been requested to return the material to Divisional Store or to deposit the cost into the Divisional chest, failing which appropriate action will be taken against him. 4. That it is further submitted that keeping in view the above stated facts the application filed by the applicant under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act has no scope therefore deserves to be dismissed. Further in clause 20 of the form accepted by the applicant/petitioner it is specifically provided that Chief Engineer’s decision will be final in case of any dispute between the Contractor and Divisional Officer and the same shall be binding upon the contractor. Since the respondents have already examined the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same therefore there is no scope for further proceedings in the matter.” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 5. Clause 20 of the Contract Agreement reads as under:- “20. The Chief Engineer’s decision will be final in case of any dispute between the contractor and Divisional officer and be binding upon the contractor.” 6. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned Clause, it is manifest that in case of any dispute between the contractor and the Divisional Officer, the decision of the Chief Engineer shall be final and binding upon the parties. Such dispute may embrace, within its fold, all questions relating to the matters specified therein as also any other question, claim, right, matter or thing, whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract. Such dispute may embrace, within its fold, all questions relating to the matters specified therein as also any other question, claim, right, matter or thing, whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract. Such dispute may also relate to designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or those conditions or, otherwise, concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same. Such disputes may be referred to for decision of the Chief Engineer, whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion thereof. There cannot, thus, be any doubt, whatsoever, that Clause 20 fulfills all the criteria of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. 7. Once Clause 20 is constituted to be a valid arbitration agreement, it would necessarily follow that the decision of the arbitrator named therein would be rendered only upon allowing the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and counterclaims as also upon hearing the parties to the dispute. For the purpose of constituting a valid Arbitration agreement, it is not necessary that the conditions as regards adduction of evidence by the parties or giving an opportunity of hearing to them must specifically be mentioned therein. Such conditions, it is trite, are implicit in the decision making process in the Arbitration proceedings. In an arbitration process, compliance with the principles of natural justice has to be ensured. The principles of natural justice, irrespective of the fact as to whether or not recorded specifically in the Arbitration agreement, are required to be followed and, once they are not complied with, the award made by the Arbitrator would be rendered invalid. 8. In the instant case, the dispute arose between the parties out of a Contract Agreement and in relation to matters specified therein and, thus, in order to attach a semblance of fairness to the process, same was required to be decided by the competent authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. However, to the contrary, the claim of the applicant has been rejected without affording him an opportunity of being heard, meaning thereby that the principles of natural justice have been given a complete goby. The competent authority must have provided adequate opportunity to the applicant to supply his reasons and grounds with reference to his claim and, accordingly, decide the matter. 9. The competent authority must have provided adequate opportunity to the applicant to supply his reasons and grounds with reference to his claim and, accordingly, decide the matter. 9. Looking at the instant case from another perspective, what needs to be stated is that the respondents, in their objections, have also put forth a counterclaim against the applicant for some outstanding amount as regards the Contract Agreement recoverable from him and have, accordingly, directed the applicant to return the material to the Divisional Stores or to deposit the cost. This admission, on the part of the respondents, makes it explicitly clear that disputed claims have been raised by the rival parties and, therefore, it was imperative that an independent and impartial sole Arbitrator be appointed in the matter, before whom both the parties could have put forth their respective claims and counterclaims based on relevant material available with them. 10. In the above background, this application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is allowed and Mr. Javid Kawoos, a former Principal District & Sessions Judge of the Subordinate judiciary, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute(s), which has/have arisen between the parties in relation to the agreement in question. The Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference and, after giving an opportunity to the parties to file their claims/counterclaims, adjudicate thereon and make his award in accordance with the Act coupled with the rules made thereunder. The Arbitrator would be at liberty to settle the terms for deciding the dispute(s), such as fees, expenses, etc., to be shared equally by the parties in dispute. 11. Registry to send copies of this order to the learned Arbitrator so appointed as also to the parties in dispute for information. 12. Parties to appear before the sole Arbitrator on the appointed date to be fixed by the Arbitrator himself. 13. Arbitration application disposed of as above.