JUDGMENT : 1. The instant application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whereby and whereunder, direction has been sought for appointment of Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the applicant and the respondents in terms of Clause 9(b) of the Event Management Agreement dated 25.09.2018. 2. It is the case of the applicant that the Department of Tourism, Art, Culture, Sports & Youth Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi floated a Request For Proposal (RFP) dated 03.08.2018 for selection of an Event Management Agency to organize Lok Manthan-2018. The applicant had participated in the said Request for Proposal wherein the applicant quoted an amount of Rs.3,90,00,000/- and was declared as L-1 bidder and the same was informed to the applicant by the Department through Letter of Award dated 28.08.2018 issued under the signature of Secretary of the respondent Department. After acceptance of the aforesaid Letter of Award by the applicant, Directorate of Culture through its Director had entered into an Event Management Agreement executed in between the respondent no.3 and the applicant on 25.09.2018. Thereafter, applicant had provided the services as per the agreement as well as additional services which were demanded by the respondents at the last moment and the applicant in order to safeguard its interest, took signatures on each requisition from the stakeholders from the Lokmanthan Committee and/or Department who requisitioned the materials/additional services and had submitted the same to the respondent. After completion of the event, the applicant submitted the invoices to the respondents for its disbursement along with the invoices of the additional services, but, the respondents had not released the amount as claimed by the applicant even after several request and personal representation made by the applicant, therefore, the instant application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the services had been provided as well as additional services had also been provided at par with world class standards but the bill which was submitted before the concerned respondent has not been disbursed. It is the case of the applicant that even the committee, by which the dispute was to be resolved before invoking the arbitration clause, had not taken any efforts and the Arbitrator had not been appointed. 4. It is the case of the applicant that even the committee, by which the dispute was to be resolved before invoking the arbitration clause, had not taken any efforts and the Arbitrator had not been appointed. 4. State has appeared and filed counter affidavit wherein plea has been taken that the instant arbitration application is not maintainable as before invoking the arbitration clause, other mechanism for resolution of the dispute as per the arbitration agreement ought to have been resorted to but the same has not been done, therefore, the instant application is not maintainable. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleading as also the annexures appended thereto. It is evident from the factual aspect that the applicant has been awarded the work to act as Event Management to organize Lok Manthan-2018 at Ranchi. The applicant was declared as L-1 bidder and accordingly, the work was allotted in its favour. An agreement was entered into in between the parties on 25.09.2018. According to the applicant, the work in entirety was completed but the claim, after the bill having been submitted, has not been disbursed. 6. It appears from the document appended to the arbitration application as under Annexure-7 dated 08.07.2019, whereby and whereunder, the representation has been made by the applicant before the concerned respondent for adjudication of the grievance. It further appears that the same has been responded by the respondent concerned by issuing communication dated 10.10.2019, whereby and whereunder, certain further documents were sought for. The applicant responded to the said communication as under Annexure-10 by making communication on 16.10.2019, whereby and whereunder, the respondent concerned had been informed that whatever documents were required, the same have already been sent and request was made to settle the dispute by disbursing the money. 7. The counter affidavit, although, has been filed but the aforesaid submission has not been disputed, save and except, plea has been taken by the learned State counsel that the efforts have not been made by the applicant for resolution of the dispute amicably as stipulated under the contract as under Clause 9(b). 8. 7. The counter affidavit, although, has been filed but the aforesaid submission has not been disputed, save and except, plea has been taken by the learned State counsel that the efforts have not been made by the applicant for resolution of the dispute amicably as stipulated under the contract as under Clause 9(b). 8. This Court, after considering the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the parties, is of the view that the contention/ground which has been taken by the learned State counsel that the applicant has not taken steps for amicable settlement of the dispute, is not worth to be considered as the applicant had made application along with documents as would appear from Annexure-7 but the respondent authorities not acting upon the same, have sought for further documents. The applicant had also responded to the same by submitted in the correspondence dated 16.10.2019 as under Annexure-10 that there is no further document rather whatever documents were required, that have already been sent for resolution of the dispute. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is incorrect to say on the part of the respondent that the applicant had not taken endeavour for amicable settlement of the dispute rather it is the respondent-State who has not taken any decision, save and except, making correspondence requiring some other documents. 9. Even accepting that there was want of document, in that circumstances, the State respondent ought to have taken a decision either-way but having not done so, the State respondent cannot be allowed to take the plea that the applicant had not taken any steps for amicable resolution of the dispute. 10. 9. Even accepting that there was want of document, in that circumstances, the State respondent ought to have taken a decision either-way but having not done so, the State respondent cannot be allowed to take the plea that the applicant had not taken any steps for amicable resolution of the dispute. 10. The aforesaid initiation made on behalf of the applicant for amicable settlement of the dispute since has not been resolved, therefore, request was made for appointment of Arbitrator as per the condition stipulated as under Clause 9(b) which reads as under: “9(b) In the event of any dispute, difference or claims arising out of or in connection with or incidental to this Agreement or the construction or interpretation of any of the clauses hereof or anything done or omitted to be done pursuant hereto, the Parties shall first endeavor to amicably settle such disputes, differences or claims, failing which, the same shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be mutually appointed by the parties.” It is evident from the condition stipulated under Clause 9(b), wherein, it has been stated that in the event of any dispute, difference or claims arising out of or in connection with or incidental to this Agreement or the construction or interpretation of any of the clauses hereof or anything done or omitted to be done pursuant hereto, the Parties shall first endeavor to amicably settle such disputes, differences or claims, failing which, the same shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be mutually appointed by the parties. 11. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that the applicant had made efforts for amicably settlement of the dispute by making correspondences but the dispute has not been settled amicably and in that view of the matter, the respondent-State ought to have appointed an Arbitrator with the consent of the parties but it had not been done even after the request having been made for appointment of Arbitrator, therefore, the instant application has been filed. 12. This Court, therefore, is of the view in the entirety of facts and circumstances that it is a fit case where this Court is required to pass order for appointment of Arbitrator in exercise of power conferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of Arbitrator, considering Clause 9(b) of the contract. 13. 12. This Court, therefore, is of the view in the entirety of facts and circumstances that it is a fit case where this Court is required to pass order for appointment of Arbitrator in exercise of power conferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of Arbitrator, considering Clause 9(b) of the contract. 13. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed for appointment of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Jaya Roy (Retd.), High Court of Jharkhand to act as an Arbitrator. Accordingly, this Arbitration Application is being disposed of by appointing Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Jaya Roy (Retd.), High Court of Jharkhand as sole Arbitrator for resolution of dispute pertaining to Event Management Agreement dated 25.09.2018. 14. Needless to say that the parties will be at liberty to raise all the legal issues for its consideration by the Arbitrator, in accordance with law. 15. It is expected that the Arbitrator will conclude the proceeding within the timeframe as provided under the Act. 16. Learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of the entire records of this case along with entire order sheet with this order to the learned Arbitrator forthwith. 17. Both the parties shall co-operate in the hearing before the learned Arbitrator and they shall not ask for any unnecessary adjournment. 18. The instant arbitration application is allowed and accordingly, disposed of.