ORDER 1. The applicant has filed this arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Arbitration Act:) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. It is pleaded in the arbitration application that NIT dated 21.11.2014 for the work of cable construction, laying and allied works for NOFN Project in Suwana Block in Bhilwara SSA was issued. The applicant’s tender was accepted and work order was issued on 24.03.2015. An agreement was executed by the parties, which contained an arbitration clause in Section V of the General (Commercial) Conditions of the Contract in Clause 17.1. The applicant completed the work within the prescribed time, but some extra work was also allotted and completion period was also extended. The applicant completed the extra work, however, the opposite party requested the applicant for executing the works relating to end to end testing. The applicant executed the additional works and raised bill Nos.56 to 65 for Rs.7,57,050/-. The bills submitted were verified and recommended by the JTO for payment but no payment was made, hence, the dispute arose between the parties. The applicant sent notice dated 23.06.2020, which was replied, but payment was not made. The applicant thereafter sent a notice on 03.04.2021 for referring the dispute to an Arbitrator. 3. The non-applicants have submitted the reply to the arbitration application. It is contended that as per the terms of the Agreement, the work, which could be done, could not exceed 150% of the original contract. The applicant was already paid for the excess works done upto 150% and any work done thereafter could not fall within the ambit of arbitrable dispute. It is also contended that the applicant had given a letter to the nonapplicants that there is no dispute or difference is left and in response to the letter received from the applicant, reply was submitted wherein each fact was duly conveyed to the applicant. It is further contended that bill of Rs.8,38,941/- has been sanctioned by the non-applicant vide letter dated 16.09.2022. 4. In reply to the above, counsel for the applicant contends that the work beyond 150% was got done under the instructions of the GMTD, Bhilwara and from the letters written by the official(s) of the Department, it is evident that they have recommended that payment should be made as the work was done under the instructions of GMTD. 5. 4. In reply to the above, counsel for the applicant contends that the work beyond 150% was got done under the instructions of the GMTD, Bhilwara and from the letters written by the official(s) of the Department, it is evident that they have recommended that payment should be made as the work was done under the instructions of GMTD. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Clause 17.1 of Section V of the General (Commercial) Conditions of the Contract is reproduced hereunder: "17.1 In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this agreement or in connection there-with except as to matter the decision of which is specifically provided under this agreement, the same shall be referred to sole arbitration of the Chief General Manager, Jaipur Rajasthan or in case his designation is changed or his office is abolished then in such case to the sole arbitration of the officer for the time being entrusted whether in addition to the functions of the Chief General Manager Jaipur Rajasthan or by whatever designation such officers may be called (hereinafter referred to as the said officer) and if the Chief General Manager Jaipur Rajasthan or the said officer is unable or unwilling to act as such to the sole arbitration or some other person appointed by the Chief General Manager, of the said officer. The agreement to appoint an arbitrator will be in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. There will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator is BSNL Servant or that he has deal with the matter to which the agreement relates or that in the course of his duties as BSNL Servant he has expressed views on all or any of the matter under dispute. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. In the event of such arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred, being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reasons whatsoever such Chief General Manager or the said officer shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator in accordance with terms of the agreement and the person so appointed shall be entitle to proceed from the stage at which it was left out by his predecessors. 7. 7. It is evident that a registered notice seeking referring the dispute to Arbitrator was sent by the applicant and the dispute has been arisen between the parties. It is also evident that as per the Clause, contractor could work upto 150% of the tender document, however, from the letters, which are available on record, it is evident that the additional work was done at the behest of the Officers and the GMTD and bill for the same was raised by the applicant, which was not honored by the non-applicants. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause and a notice seeking appointment of an Arbitrator has been issued, as to whether the applicant is entitled to an amount above 150% will have to be decided by the Arbitrator. 8. Since there is allegation that the same was done at the behest of the Officers and the GMTD, I, therefore, deem it proper to allow the arbitration application and appoint Mr. Justice G.R. Moolchandani (Retired), Plot No.213, Taru Chhaya Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, as the sole arbitrator. 9. The appointment of the sole arbitrator is subject to the declarations being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to the independence and impartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration within prescribed period. 10. Accordingly, arbitration application stands allowed. The arbitrator shall be entitled to lay down fees as provided under Manual of Procedure for Alternative Disputes Resolution, 2009 as amended from time to time. 11. Registry is directed to intimate Mr. Justice G.R. Moolchandani (Retired) and obtain his formal consent. 12. The observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of deciding the present application and the same will not disentitle the parties to raise all valid objections before the learned Arbitrator and the Arbitrator will be free to dispose of the said objection without being influenced by the observations made by this Court.