ORDER : Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri. Pawnesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Vivek Ratan Agarwal for the respondents. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of the Arbitrator. 3. The case of the applicant is that applicant had entered into an agreement with respondent Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "IFFCO") for dismantling of earth work, bearing work contract No. 43/25849/0698 P1/9780112 the duration of the aforesaid contract was 10.10.1997 to 25.10.1997 and the value of this work order was Rs. 27,10,687/-. 4. The applicant has, however, not disclosed the date of agreement in his application. He, however, claims that the respondents have not paid to the applicant for the work done by him. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier on 4.4.2015 an application was given to the Senior General Manager of IFFCO invoking the arbitration clause for the work done between 1.7.1997 to 14.8.1997, but no Arbitrator was appointed. He further contends that the work contract, which is annexed as Annexure 7 to his application, in clause 15, provides for the arbitration clause. 5. Sri. Tiwari further submits that a Writ Petition No. 22556 of 1999 was filed by the applicant as he was black listed by the respondent on 15.5.1999 and the same having been dismissed in default, a restoration application was filed and the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 9.11.2016 granted liberty to the applicant to invoke the arbitration clause under the terms of the agreement. He further contends that the delay so caused shall be considered by the Arbitrator, so appointed. 6. Sri. Tiwari further contends that pursuant to the order dated 9.11.2016 the applicant invoking the arbitration clause on 29.11.2016 by giving a notice to the respondents, the said notice is annexed as Annexure 9 at page 50 of the paper book. The respondent no. 3, who is the officer of the IFFCO, by order dated 30.12.2016 rejected the request for appointment of the Arbitrator, hence the present application. 7. Sri. Tiwari contends that the respondent IFFCO did not comply the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 9.11.2016 and has wrongly rejected the application for the appointment of an Arbitrator as such this Court may appoint an Arbitrator. 8. Per contra, Sri. 7. Sri. Tiwari contends that the respondent IFFCO did not comply the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 9.11.2016 and has wrongly rejected the application for the appointment of an Arbitrator as such this Court may appoint an Arbitrator. 8. Per contra, Sri. Vivek Rantan Agarwal, counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the present arbitration application is not maintainable and is misconceived on the ground that the applicant has concealed vital material facts this Court. He has invited attention of the Court to paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit. According to Sri. Agarwal the petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 29709 of 2003 before this Court seeking a relief for quashing the order/letter dated 13.5.2003 and further directing the respondents to make payment of Rs. 5,44,337.50. He submits that the order dated 13.5.2003 was annexed as Annexure 8 to the said writ petition, which is part of the counter affidavit so filed by him and is at page 53. According to the said order no work/order/job contract was ever awarded and the representation dated 16.3.2003 of the applicant was rejected by the said order. 9. The Division Bench by order dated 16.7.2003 had dismissed the petition of the applicant. The order is quoted below:- "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.5.2003 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) shows that the concerned authority has recorded a finding that as per records of the Company, no work/order/job was awarded to the petitioner. In view of this finding of fact, we can not interfere in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- M. Katju, J. Sd/- R.S. Tripathi, J. Dt. 16.7.2003" 10. A review application was filed by the applicant and the same was also rejected by order dated 10.10.2003, copy of the said order is appended at page 66 of the counter affidavit. 11. Sri. Vivek Ratan further submits that the applicant had earlier filed an Arbitration Application No. 10 of 2017, a copy of the said arbitration application is appended as Annexure 4, at page 67 to the counter affidavit. 12. The applicant in paragraph 17 of the said arbitration application has stated that he did not commence the work as the rate was illusory. 12. The applicant in paragraph 17 of the said arbitration application has stated that he did not commence the work as the rate was illusory. The relevant paragraph is quoted as under: "That the applicant had been issued work order No. 43/25849/0698P1/978012 for dismantling and Earth work worth Rs. 27,106.87 by IFFCO. The duration of contract was for the period 10.10.1997 to 25.10.1997. The applicant did not commence the works as the rates were illusory. The work order No. 43 contained ARBITRATION Clause No. 15.0. The true copy of the Work Order No. 43 containing Arbitration Clause is being enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 5 to this application." 13. He further contends that the said work contract, which has been stated in paragraph 17 of the earlier arbitration application has again been enclosed in the present arbitration proceeding and the applicant is claiming for appointment of the Arbitrator on the same work order/contract. 14. Sri. Vivek Ratan further contends that the relief sought in Writ Petition No. 22256 of 1999 filed by the petitioner is also in regard to his black listing and for passing an order not to cancel the work order no. 43/2785B1/9802959, dated 24.3.1999 and 43/2784 B1/9803285 dated 15.4.1999. He further contends that the applicant was not given any work contract by order of the respondent Society. In paragraph 31 of the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that the applicant is no longer a registered contractor of the IFFCO and no work has been awarded to the applicant since 1999. 15. Refuting the submissions made by Sri. Vivek Ratan Agarwal, Sri. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant submits that by order dated 9.11.2016, the Court had directed that in case the applicant invoked the arbitration clause, the respondent will appoint an Arbitrator and as such the respondents have failed to comply with the order dated 9.11.2016. 16. I have considered the oral submissions of the counsel and have gone through the records of the case. From the perusal of paragraph nos. 24 and 25 the rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant it appears that no specific denial has been made to the averments made in the counter affidavit, specifically in regard to paragraph nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18, which specifically deals regarding the earlier writ petition filed by the applicant in the year 2003 as well as the earlier arbitration application no. 15, 16, 17 and 18, which specifically deals regarding the earlier writ petition filed by the applicant in the year 2003 as well as the earlier arbitration application no. 10 of 2017. 17. The applicant has neither disclosed all these facts in his present application for appointment of an Arbitrator and has only relied upon the order dated 9.11.2016. 18. It is an admitted case that the applicant in paragraph 17 of his earlier Arbitration Application No. 10 of 2017 had categorically stated that he could not commence the work as the rate was illusive. He had further stated that the work order No. 43 contains the Arbitration Clause No. 15. Once the applicant himself had admitted that no work was executed by him pursuant to the work contract no. 43, as such no question of payment arise. 19. Further, the writ petition no. 29709 of 2003 through which the petitioner had challenged the order dated 13.5.2003 along with a relief for making certain payment was dismissed on 16.7.2003 with the finding that the applicant had no work/order/job as such it is thus culled out that no work order was given to the applicant and further in his arbitration application, the statement so made, fortifies the fact. 20. The case of the petitioner solely hinges on the fact that the order dated 9.11.2016 passed on the restoration application to the effect that the applicant may invoke the arbitration proceedings does not give him a blanket right for invoking the same. 21. Further, from the perusal of the notice invoking the arbitration clause dated 29.11.2016 subsequent to the order passed by the Division Bench, the applicant has no where disclosed in his notice regarding which work order/contract he is invoking the arbitration. 22. From the perusal of the arbitration application of the applicant it is no where clear as to which work order or contract and on what date he is relying upon and invoking the said clause. Moreover, in the earlier arbitration application no. 10 of 2017 once he had categorically stated that he did not commence the work as such no occasion arises for the appointment of arbitrator for the work contract so executed which, according to the respondent was never acted upon and further from the pleadings of the applicant in earlier arbitration proceedings the work was not executed by him. 23. 10 of 2017 once he had categorically stated that he did not commence the work as such no occasion arises for the appointment of arbitrator for the work contract so executed which, according to the respondent was never acted upon and further from the pleadings of the applicant in earlier arbitration proceedings the work was not executed by him. 23. In view of the above, the arbitration application so filed by the applicant is wholly misconceived as well as material facts have been suppressed by the applicant from the Court. 24. I, therefore, decline to interfere for appointment of an Arbitrator. 25. The arbitration application stands rejected.