JUDGMENT : The applicant has preferred the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to seek the appointment of an Arbitrator under Clause 2.22 of the RFP dated 29.01.2021. The applicant has also sought further reliefs, which fall beyond the scope of these proceedings. 2. The case of the applicant is that, the applicant participated in response to the Request For Proposal (RFP), issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Uttarakhand, Directorate of Treasury, Pension and Entitlements, Uttarakhand, for selection of system integrator (SI) for redundant connectivity for Treasuries across Uttarakhand along with the existing SWAN connectivity under Finance Data Center (FDC). The case of the applicant is that, its technical and financial bids were accepted, and the applicant’s bid was found to be the lowest. The applicant states that on 26.06.2021, the applicant received an E-mail from Treasury U.K., stating as follows : “Sir Please find the attached work order for providing Redundant Connectivity for Treasuries across Uttarakhand.” 3. The relevant part of the enclosed work order, in Hindi language, reads as follows : ^^izs"kd] funs'kd] dks"kkxkj] isa'ku ,oa gdnkjh] mRrjk[k.M] 23] y{eh jksM+] Mkyuokyk] nsgjknwuA lsok es] eS0 Hkkjrh ,;jVsy lfoZlst fy0] Vh0th0lh0 7@7 foHkqfr [k.M] Xkkserhuxj] y[kum 226010 Ik=kad% 1357@fu0dks0@dEI;wVj ¼,Q0Mh0lh0½@2020@015¼02½ fn0 26 twu] 2021 fo"k; % vkbZ0,Q0,EkQ0,l0 Ikz.kkyh ds csgrj fØ;kUo;u gsrq jkT; ds dks"kkxkjksa] midks"kkxkjksa rFkk foRRkh; MkVk lsaVj vkfn dks vfrfjDr duSfDVfoVh dh lqfo/kk 03 o"kksZ ds fy, miyC/k djkus dk Ø;kns'kA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d voxr djkuk gS fd vkbZ0,Q0,EkQ0,l0 Ikz.kkyh ds csgrj fØ;kUo;u gsrq jkT; ds dks"kkxkjksa] midks"kkxkjksa rFkk foRRkh; MkVk lsaVj vkfn dks vfrfjDr duSfDVfoVh dh lqfo/kk 03 o"kksZ ds fy, miyC/k djkus ds lEcU/k esa fn0 29&01&2021 dks vkeaf=r bZ&fufonk jsQjsUl ua0 5305/DTPE/Computer/FDC/2020/015 (02) Eks mDr dk;Z gsrq vkidh QeZ dh njsa :-5]29]04]989-63 * U;wUkre (L1) ik;h x;h gSaA mDr bZ&fufonk ds lkis{k mRrjk[k.M 'kklu ds i= la[;ka 309@ XXVII(6) @,d&Vhlh,@486@2019 fn0 24 twu] 2021 ds }kjk iz'kkldh; ,o foRrh; Lohd`fr iznku dh x;h gSA 'kklu ls izkIr Lohd`fr ds Øe esa jkT; ds dks"kkxkjksa] midks"kkxkjksa] PAO ubZ fnYyh rFkk foRRkh; MkVk lsaVj esa vfrfjDr duSfDVfoVh dh lqfo/kk miyC/k djkus gsrq fufonk esa mfYyf[kr 'krksZ rFkk izfrca/kks ds v/khu djus dk d"V djsA LFkkuksa dk fooj.k fuEuor gS & S. No. Locations for Provisioning of Bandwidth Number Bandwidth Remarks 1. Finance Data Centre (Fiber Ring) 1 100 Mbps 100 Mbps Internet Bandwidth At FDC 2. Finance Data Centre (Fiber Ring) 1 100 Mbps 100 Mbps Internet Bandwidth At FDC 2. District Treasuries (Fiber/RF) 13 10 Mbps 3. Treasuries/Sub-Treasuries/Pay and account office (RF/Fiber with electrical Ethernet port) 77 4 Mbps * mDr njksa esa leLr dj o fu/kkZZfjr xUrO; LFkku rd ,oa 03 o"kksZ ds fy;s cS.MfoMFk vkiwfrZ o LFkkiuk Hkh lfEEkfyr gSA vr% vuqjks/k gS fd fufonk esa mfYyf[kr 'krksZ ,oa izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu viuh lgerh rFkk vuqca/k i= ij bl i= ds tkjh gksus ds 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj gLrk{kfjr djus dk d"V djsaA Hkonh;] ¼vj.ksUnz flag pkSgku½ vij funs'kdA** 4. The further case of the applicant is that, on 30.06.2021, the respondent again issued a communication, suspending the work order dated 26.06.2021. Subsequently, on 21.08.2021, the said work order was cancelled by the respondent. The case of the applicant is that with the issuance of the work order, the offer / bid of the applicant stood accepted, and a binding contract came into being, on the terms and conditions contained in the RFP. The applicant claims that the suspension of the contract and its unilateral recession has caused damages to the applicant, which the applicant wishes to claim in arbitration. 5. The applicant invoked the Arbitration Agreement vide notice dated 01.10.2021. The applicant claimed that the agreement between the parties contains an Arbitration Agreement in Clause 2.22 of the RFP. The said Clause, in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows : “2.22 Dispute Resolution i. DTPE and the selected Bidder shall make every effort to resolve amicably by direct informal negotiation any disagreement or dispute arising between them under or in connection with the Contract. ii. In the event of any dispute or differences or objection whatsoever arises in any way in connection with or arising out of this instrument of the meaning of or operation by either party, then save in so far the decision of any such matter including whether its decision has been otherwise provided for and/or whether it has been finally decided accordingly or whether contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated in whole or in part and as regards the rights and obligations of the party as the result of such termination, shall be referred for joint arbitration. Such arbitration proceedings shall be in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, the rules thereunder and any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof, shall apply to the arbitration proceedings.” 6. Since the parties did not appoint a mutually acceptable arbitrator, the present application has been preferred. 7. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent has filed its counter-affidavit. The stand taken by the respondent is that, no agreement came into being between the parties, and, consequently, the Arbitration Agreement contained in Clause 2.22 of the RFP cannot be construed as the binding Arbitration Agreement between the parties. 8. Mr. Pande submits that the communication dated 26.06.2021, extracted hereinabove, stated that the applicant should execute the Agreement within 30 days of the issuance of the work order. However, no such Agreement was executed within the period of 30 days, and within four days, i.e., on 30.06.2021, the work order dated 26.06.2021 was suspended and, thereafter, it was cancelled on 21.08.2021. 9. I have heard learned counsels, and perused the RFP and the correspondence exchanged between the parties. I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Pande, learned counsel for the respondent. 10. The applicant responded to the RFP, and submitted its offer, as its tender. That offer of the applicant was accepted by the respondent with the issuance of the work order on 26.06.2021. Merely because the respondent required the applicant to convey its acceptance of the RFP condition, is neither here, nor there, for the reason that the applicant being a bidder - while making its offer, obviously, accepted the conditions of the RFP, and that is why, the applicant responded to the RFP. It is not the case of the respondent, that the applicant made any reservations while making its tender. It is also not the case of the respondent that the acceptance of the applicant’s bid / tender was on terms and conditions different from those contained in the RFP. Only if the applicant’s bid contained terms and conditions which were different from the RFP, and the respondent were to issue its acceptance in terms of the RFP, the acceptance of the said bid - or the work order, could be considered as a counter-offer, again requiring an acceptance by the applicant. The communication dated 26.06.2021, extracted hereinabove, required the applicant to undertake the work as detailed in the tabulation contained therein. The communication dated 26.06.2021, extracted hereinabove, required the applicant to undertake the work as detailed in the tabulation contained therein. This was the precise work for which the tender was invited. Merely because the applicant was required to execute the Agreement within 30 days, it does not take away from the fact that the offer made by the applicant stood accepted with the issuance of the work order dated 26.06.2021, and a binding contract came into being between the parties. The formal / ministerial act of entering into an Agreement subsequently would not have any bearing on the legal relationship between the parties which came into existence on 26.06.2021 with the issuance of the work order, since there is no specific term in the RFP relied upon by the respondent, nor any provision of law is cited, to say that only upon execution of a formal agreement, a binding agreement / contract would come into being. Therefore, I reject the aforesaid objection of the respondent. Admittedly, the RFP contains the Dispute Resolution Mechanism in Clause 2.22, which provides for arbitration, in the event of the parties, not resolving their disputes amicably. It is clear that disputes have arisen between the parties. 11. Consequently, I allow this arbitration application, and appoint Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal, Retd. Judge, Delhi High Court, Mobile No. 9810384619, to act as the sole Arbitrator. It is, however, made clear that no observation made hereinabove shall come in the way of the arbitral tribunal in deciding the issues arising before it, on merits.