JUDGMENT : The instant application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking direction for appointment of sole Arbitrator in pursuant to the Arbitration Clause as contained under Clause 16 of the Contract. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the application, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- It is the case of the petitioner/applicant that a tender vide Bid Document No.GEM/2019/B/196937 dated 04.03.2019 was invited by the respondent for procurement of smartphone as per its technical specifications. As per the tender, the date of the closure of the Bid was 23.03.2019. The petitioner has submitted the Bid as an authorized seller of “Vivo” smartphone and filled the bid by mentioning the model VIVO Y8li. It was mandatory to provide model name, though, the technical specification was the criteria for being successful in the technical Bid. The said Bid was valid for 90 days from the date of publishing i.e., 03.06.2019. However, the same was extended unilaterally by the respondent number of times. The financial Bid by reverse auction took place on 26.06.2019, wherein, the petitioner was declared as L-1 bidder. The Contract No.GEMC-511687738597247 dated 10.07.2019 was generated by GeM, wherein, at the model column, the name of the mode of the smartphone was written as VIVO Y8li, as per the model name submitted by the petitioner at the time of submission of its bid and after lapse of 4-5 months, the particular model name, was not available with the petitioner because the said model was out of manufacture by the “Vivo” Company. In view of the aforesaid development, the petitioner has written a letter to the respondent intimating about upgraded version of quoted model i.e., VIVO Y8li. Thereafter, the respondent has directed the petitioner to sign the SLA Agreement and submit the Performance Bank Guarantee. The petitioner has submitted the Performance Bank Guarantee and 100 rupees stamp paper (Non Judicial) to sign the SLA Agreement as also submitted a letter of VIVO India Pvt. Ltd. to the respondent informing that the VIVO Y8li is out of production. The SLA Agreement was signed between the petitioner and the respondent as also physical copy of the Bank Guarantee was submitted. The SLA Agreement was signed between the petitioner and the respondent as also physical copy of the Bank Guarantee was submitted. Thereafter, the petitioner has written a letter to the Ministry of respondent about its readiness and willingness to supply further upgraded version of the smartphone bearing model name VIVO Y9li at the same price as offered against VIVO Y8li. The petitioner has given undertaking to the respondent authority to abide by the additional terms and conditions with respect to supply of VIVO Y9li model. The Procurement Committee of the respondent in its meeting dated 22.08.2019 has found that the VIVO Y9li is technically superior than VIVO Y8li. The respondent authority has mailed CEO, GEM asking guidance regarding change of the model in view of the petitioner readiness and willingness to supply VIVO Y9li model in place of VIVO Y8li. The CEO, GEM, in reply to the above mentioned letter of the respondent has clarified that GEM only provides a platform for tendering and the issue raised in the mail, is a matter between the “Seller” and the “Buyer”. The respondent issued a letter to the petitioner intimating it about the rejection of its request made vide letter dated 17.07.2019 and 13.08.2019 without mentioning any reason. Vide said letter, the petitioner was also directed to supply 29134 Smartphone bearing Model Y8li as per the GeM terms and conditions within 90 days i.e., 07.10.2019 as also to provide the supply schedule of the same within three days. Thereafter, the petitioner has tried to persuade the respondent to take its latest upgraded model which is ready to supply at the similar price but the respondent has not given any response to that. The petitioner has requested the respondent to constitute Co-ordinate Committee to resolve the dispute as per amicable settlement clause of the general terms and conditions but the respondent has not taken any positive step with respect to settlement of dispute, as such, the impugned letter was issued, wherein, it was mentioned that the Contract has been cancelled for default on the ground of non-supply of the specific model of smartphone mentioned in the contract dated 10.07.2019. 3. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner/applicant that the aforesaid claim has not been resolved by the respondent and as such, a notice for appointment of Arbitrator has been made vide notice dated 17.01.2020 which was received on 20.01.2020, even though, the considerable period has been passed, but the respondent has not appointed the Arbitrator, therefore, the instant application. 4. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned AC to AG appearing for the State has submitted by referring to the stand taken by the State respondent in the counter-affidavit, wherein, due to non-compliance by the bidder regarding submission of the PBG and signing of Service Level Agreement, liability has been casted upon the petitioner/applicant and therefore, PBG amounting to Rs.1,23,81,950/-has been forfeited. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that it is a fit case for its reference for appointment of Arbitrator, reason being that the State respondent is also having the money claim against the petitioner/applicant. 5. This Court has considered the submission made on behalf of the parties as also considering no objection on the part of the State respondent regarding appointment of sole Arbitrator, is of the view that the sole Arbitrator is required to be appointed in this case for resolution of dispute. 6. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. 7. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the State respondent has suggested the name of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitav K. Gupta, (Retd.), Former Judge of this Court, as sole Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute in between the parties. 8. Mr. Praveen Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, has not raised any objection with respect to suggestion about the name of sole Arbitrator. 9. Considering the aforesaid suggestion, this Court, therefore, appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitav K. Gupta (Retd.), Former Judge of this Court presently residing at 304, Solitaire Apartment, Behind Bachpan Play School, Near Chandni Chowk, Kanke Road, Ranchi-834006, as sole Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute between the parties. 10. The proposed Arbitrator is required to submit a declaration in terms of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 11. Learned Arbitrator would be free to lay down fees and other expenses towards conduct of the arbitration proceedings, however, keeping into account the ceiling prescribed under Schedule IV of the Act of 1996 as amended. 12. 10. The proposed Arbitrator is required to submit a declaration in terms of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 11. Learned Arbitrator would be free to lay down fees and other expenses towards conduct of the arbitration proceedings, however, keeping into account the ceiling prescribed under Schedule IV of the Act of 1996 as amended. 12. Learned Arbitrator would endeavour to conclude the proceedings preferably within the period of six months, also taking into regard the mandate of the Legislature under Section 29-A of the Act of 1996. 13. Let photocopy of the entire pleadings along with copy of the entire order sheet be sent to the learned Arbitrator by the Registry. 14. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.