ORDER : Heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rohishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. There is no dispute that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties, which was entered into in respect of work order for “Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Integrated Security System consisting of IP Based Video Surveillance System, Access Control, Personal & Baggage Screening System, Explosive Detection and Disposal System and System Integration along with Comprehensive AMC for the 1st and 2nd year after expiry of Warranty Period of three (03) years at Bilaspur, Raipur and Gondia Railway Stations of South East Central Railway”, issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. On 16.05.2016, in view of certain disputes that had arisen between the parties, the petitioner wrote a letter requesting arbitration. The letter reads as follows : “Sub : Request for Arbitration. Ref : 1. Termination letter No. S&T/Con/Tenders/ISS/BSP, R, G/476/742 dated 10/8/2015 2. Dy. CSTE/P-I/BSP’s letter No. ST/Project/BSP,R,G/476/743, dated 13/08/2015 3. Dy. CSTE/P-I/BSP’s letter No. ST/Project/BSP/ISS/BSP,R,G/476/43, dated 03/11/2015 4. CSTE/P/BSP’s letter No. ST/Project/BSP/ISS/BSP,R,G/476 dated 17/10/2014, 11/12/2014 & 26/02/2015 5. SSE/T-W/BSP’s letter No. TW/BSP ISS/BSP, R,G/476/298 dated 15/12/2015 6. CEL letter No. CEL/ISS/SSG/2015-16/297 dated 7/1/2016 7. Your letter No. S&T/Proj/ISS/BSP. R&G/476/796 DATED 27/1/2016 8. CA No. ST/Con/Tender/ISS/BSP,R,G/476 dated 25/7/2013 The above referred to contract was terminated on 10/8/15. CEL has been making all efforts to have the final measurement done so that the contract can be closed. In its letter under reference (i) above SECR has said that the supplied material against this contract is to be taken back stating that due to some technical reasons these items cannot be retained by Railways. It is stated that the items supplied were as per Railways specification and already inspected and cleared by inspecting authority either RITES, RDSO or consignee. It is not possible for CEL to take the same back at this stage. As SECR has not agreed to release payment, CEL requests SECR for arbitration in this matter in terms of clause No. 48 of the contract agreement. The detailed statement of claims is enclosed. STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1. CEL has supplied inspected material with Rs.2,96,45,549/- to Railways against this contract. It therefore claim Rs.2,22,16,439/- against various supply in terms of clause No.43 of the contract agreement. The detailed statement of claims is enclosed. STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1. CEL has supplied inspected material with Rs.2,96,45,549/- to Railways against this contract. It therefore claim Rs.2,22,16,439/- against various supply in terms of clause No.43 of the contract agreement. The summary is as under : Value of items supplied Rs.2,96,45,549/- Amount payable @80% Rs.2,37,16,439/- Less Liquidated damages Rs.15,00,000/- Final amount payable Rs.2,22,16,439/-” 4. There was no response from the Railways. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 02.09.2019 praying for appointment of an Arbitrator. 5. Before issuance of notice and after filing of the writ petition, on 03.10.2019, the respondents proposed a panel of 4 (four) Retired Railway Officers with a request to the petitioner to accept two names out of the above panel within 30 days from the date of dispatch of the letter from which, it was indicated that one of them will be appointed as nominee of the petitioner. It was also indicated that if no response was forthcoming all the names appearing in the panel are to be presumed as approved nominees of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner did not respond to the said letter dated 03.10.2019 and subsequently, the respondent by letter dated 02.12.2019 appointed one Sri Indra Ghosh as Presiding Arbitrator and Sri. A.K. Duhoon & Sri R.C. Sethy as Co-Arbitrators. 7. It is to be noted that in the letter dated 03.10.2019, the names of Sri Indra Ghosh and Sri R.C. Sethy were not proposed. 8. In Durga Welding Works vs. Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, Allahabad and Another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 11, it is reiterated that once an application under Section 11(6) of the Act has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator before the High Court, the respondent forfeits its right to appoint an arbitrator and the High Court alone has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in exercise of power under Section 11(6) of the Act. 9. In this petition, the appointment of the arbitrator was made by the respondent after the petitioner had filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Act. 10. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for appointment of an arbitrator. 11. Accordingly, Hon'ble Mr. 9. In this petition, the appointment of the arbitrator was made by the respondent after the petitioner had filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Act. 10. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for appointment of an arbitrator. 11. Accordingly, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Kumar Mishra (Retd.), a retired Judge of this Court, is appointed to act as the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. 12. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Kumar Mishra (Retd.) in his Lordship’s proper address. 13. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 14. The arbitration application, accordingly, stands allowed. No costs.