JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. - The petitioner is before this Court, in this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"), seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a Concession Agreement dated 22.10.2012 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. In respect of the said Concession Agreement, certain disputes have arisen between the parties, which are required to be resolved through arbitration. In that regard, Clause 11.2(a) of the Concession Agreement dated 22.10.2012, which relates to Arbitration, is referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Clause 11.2(a) of the Concession Agreement dated 22.10.2012 reads as under:- 11.2 Arbitration (a) Procedure Subject to the provisions of Clause 11.1, any dispute arising during or after concession period, which is not resolved amicably, shall be finally settled by binding arbitration under the Arbitration Act. The arbitration shall be by a panel of three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each Party and the third to be appointed by the two arbitrators appointed by the Parties. The Party requiring arbitration shall appoint an arbitrator in writing, inform the other Party about such appointment and call upon the other Party to appoint its arbitrator. If within 30 days of receipt of such intimation the other Party fails to appoint its arbitrator, the Party seeking appointment of arbitrator may take further steps in accordance with Arbitration Act. 3. Shri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the existence of an Arbitration clause in the Concession Agreement dated 22.10.2012. 4. As per the arbitration clause, the arbitration is required to be conducted by a panel of three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and the third to be appointed by the two arbitrators appointed by the parties. 5. It is submitted by Shri Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has since appointed Shri Ram Prakash Sharma, Advocate, resident of R-187, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL, Haridwar as an arbitrator from their side. 6. There is no appointment of arbitrator by the respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating therein that there is no dispute to be agitated and that the same is to be settled amicably. However, I do not find any material to accept such a submission. 7. 6. There is no appointment of arbitrator by the respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating therein that there is no dispute to be agitated and that the same is to be settled amicably. However, I do not find any material to accept such a submission. 7. Under these circumstances, Shri U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate, residing at 102 Golf Links, New Delhi, is appointed to act as the arbitrator on behalf of the respondent, after his disclosure in writing is obtained in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act; and only after receipt thereof shall his appointment, as an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent, come into force. The learned arbitrator appointed by this Court, on behalf of the respondent, shall fix his fees in consultation with the respondent. 8. In terms of Clause 11.2(a) of the Concession Agreement dated 22.10.2012, both the arbitrators shall together appoint the third arbitrator. 9. The arbitration application is disposed off accordingly.