ORDER : 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator. 2. The facts, necessary for adjudication of this arbitration application are that the applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which is currently involved in the implementation of a government project for skilling of 1200 rural poor youth in various sectors in the State of Chhattisgarh under the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Grameen Kaushalya Yojana ("DDUGKY"). The respondent is the nodal agency established with the aim of promoting skill employment and entrepreneurship by implementing schemes of the Ministry of Rural Development ("MoRD"). As a part of its major action, it established skill training mechanism by involving training partner agencies to execute the training program across the State of Chhattisgarh. On 25.09.2014, the Government of India had initiated a scheme under the name of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana ("the Scheme") under the Ministry of Rural Development ("MoRD") tasked with the dual objectives of adding diversity to the incomes of rural poor families and cater to the career aspirations of rural youth. This is a national level flagship program of MoRD and the State is designated as a nodal agency to carry out this program as per the norms laid down in Standard Operating Procedure ("SOP"). 3. The respondent is the nodal agency for implementation of the Scheme in Chhattisgarh, as per the norms laid down in the SOP. It is entrusted with execution, monitoring, and supervision of the Scheme. The applicant is duly registered with the MoRD to implement the Scheme. As per the Scheme, the Central Government decides a number of poor candidates to be trained in a year, which is called as "Target" and based on the same, cost of training is decided and budget is allocated for the Project. The total target decided by the Central Government is distributed amongst States to start the work and the nodal agencies invites letter of interest from various Project Implementing Agencies (for short, the PIAs). The PIAs from across the country submit their interest for the project in the format as prescribed - which is known as the Project Application, and thereafter, Project Approval Committee ("PAC"), constituted by State Government allocates the target to successful PIA and issues sanction letter(s) to that effect. The PIAs from across the country submit their interest for the project in the format as prescribed - which is known as the Project Application, and thereafter, Project Approval Committee ("PAC"), constituted by State Government allocates the target to successful PIA and issues sanction letter(s) to that effect. After issuing the sanction letter to the concerned PIA, the nodal agency in the State executes a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the PIA for the proposed project work, thereby stating the necessary terms and conditions therein. Thereafter, a Project Commencement letter is issued to the PIA. The PIA is required to submit a Due Diligence Report ("DDR") for a centre where the PIA intends to commence training along with full details, including but not limited to, the staff recruited, photographs of the infrastructure, compliance details etc. in line of the SOP. This DDR is thoroughly inspected by nodal agency team, discrepancies are pointed out and the PIA is required to rectify and correct the defects and/or discrepancies and thereafter, the report is approved. Once the DDR is approved, PIA commences mobilization of rural poor candidates and initiates the training, and thereafter placements activities. A bare perusal of the aforesaid operating procedure would reveal that the success of the project fundamentally depends upon the willingness of the candidates to undergo training and relocate, if necessary, for placements. 4. As per the terms and conditions of the MOU and the SOP of the Scheme, the nodal agency is required to release 25% of the total cost of project upon execution of MOU. Sometime in 2017, the applicant submitted its Project Application form for training and placement of 1800 candidates (subsequently rightsized to 1200 candidates) under the DDUGKY scheme in various sectors in the state of Chhattisgarh to the respondent CGSRLM which was approved by the Project Approval Committee. Accordingly, a Sanction Letter (Order) bearing No.784/v- 06/NRLM/DDU-GKY/2017 dated 18.05.2017 was issued to the applicant sanctioning training and placement of 1800 (subsequently revised to 1200 candidates) candidates in various sectors across the State of Chhattisgarh. The duration of the project was for 36 months for a total sanctioned project cost of Rs. 25,24,10,472/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 14,74,41,527/-. Subsequently, a MoU dated 19.05.2017 was executed by and between the applicant and the respondent. The duration of the project was for 36 months for a total sanctioned project cost of Rs. 25,24,10,472/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 14,74,41,527/-. Subsequently, a MoU dated 19.05.2017 was executed by and between the applicant and the respondent. A Project Commencement Order bearing No./2259/NRLM/DDU- GKY/2017 dated 14.08.2017 was issued to the applicant stating that the project shall be deemed to commenced from 05.08.2017 (Project Commencement date). The first installment of Rs 3,78,61,517/- was received by the applicant and that the applicant began the execution of this flagship program with fervor and complied with the norms and guidelines of the SOP as per the mandate issued under the DDUGKY scheme. The applicant had made all the necessary efforts to ensure that it meets its targets within the stipulated timeline by creation of state-of-the-art Skill Development Centers (SDC's) for proper execution of this flagship program in accordance to the timeline as prescribed in SOP. The applicant had setup State-of-the-art residential training centre as per the SOP, at Raipur, with an overall operational capacity of 285 Candidates. The applicant had apprised respondent of these efforts from time to time demonstrating the operations at its centers continuing at the desired pace. 5. According to the applicant, despite the proper compliance to all the terms and conditions by the applicant, the respondent has at all times created unnecessary impediments for the applicant in carrying out of the project. The applicant states that the respondent addressed notices including yellow alerts/show cause notice to it for purported non adherence to the timelines/guidelines prescribed under the SOP and the applicant at all times has replied with the compliance report and necessary documents indicating compliance and adherence to the norms of the SOP under the Scheme. However, none of these responses along with compliance reports and utilization certificates were taken into consideration by respondent. Pursuant to review meeting which. was held on 17.07.2018, the applicant vide letter dated 04.08.2018 was intimated regarding a personal hearing with respect to the rightsizing of the project allotted to it. The said meeting was scheduled on 06.08.2018. A bare perusal of the said letter would reveal that the respondent had already made up its mind to right size the project and the said personal hearing was a mere formality and as expected the project of the applicant was rightsized by 600 and the new target was fixed at 1200. 6. The said meeting was scheduled on 06.08.2018. A bare perusal of the said letter would reveal that the respondent had already made up its mind to right size the project and the said personal hearing was a mere formality and as expected the project of the applicant was rightsized by 600 and the new target was fixed at 1200. 6. The applicant was issued a yellow alert show cause notice dated 05.10.2018 by the respondent with respect to the non-submission of the Audited Financial Statement i.e.. Annual Utilization Certificate. Thereafter, the respondent issued another yellow alert show cause notice dated 10.10.2018 to the applicant with respect to non- submission of Monthly Verification Certificate. The said show cause notices were duly responded to by the applicant vide its two separate replies, both of which were dated 25.02.2019 providing for necessary compliance. Thereafter the respondent vide its letter dated 07.12.2018 called upon the applicant to discuss specific trades and mobilization districts for rightsizing and the applicant vide its letter dated 10.12.2018 duly provided for the same. The applicant was carrying out its obligations in all its earnest but the respondent time and again issued various show cause notices to the applicant and issued a 30 days show cause notice dated 11.01.2019 to the applicant as to why the penalty proceedings not be initiated against the Applicant. The said show cause notice was issued with respect to the alleged diversion of funds to the tune of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- from the project dedicated account on 01.09.2017 and also few other high value cash transactions. 7. The aforesaid said show cause notice was duly responded to by the applicant vide its letter dated 22.01.2019 providing, for evidence and explanation in detail as to the amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and other high value transactions. The applicant in the said reply averred that the said amount of Rs. 3 Crores were not diverted and was rather spent for setting up of infrastructure, medical labs, advances to hostels and food vendors and other service providers. The applicant with respect to the other high value transactions provided for invoices in its support. The applicant thereafter pursuant to the review meeting held on 31.01.2019; vide its letter dated 01.02.2019 submitted the revised PPWS. The applicant has time and again promptly provided for any detail as sought by the respondent highlighting its intention to carry out the project effectively. The applicant thereafter pursuant to the review meeting held on 31.01.2019; vide its letter dated 01.02.2019 submitted the revised PPWS. The applicant has time and again promptly provided for any detail as sought by the respondent highlighting its intention to carry out the project effectively. The respondent issued yet another yellow alert show cause notice dated 07.02.2019 to the applicant for alleged defaults. The said show cause notice was duly responded to by the applicant vide its reply dated 05.03.2019 providing for remedial actions taken by it. However, the same was not considered. The respondent did not consider any of the contentions and replies to the various show cause noticed sent by the applicant and the respondent vide its show cause notice dated 03.06.2019 called upon applicant to provide reasons within 25 days as to why major penalty proceeding not be initiated against it. The respondent in the said notice also provided that the major penalty may be fine up to Rs 50,48,209/- and/or closure of project. The said show cause notice was duly responded to by the applicant vide its letter dated 25.06.2019 providing for detailed explanation/clarification to the respondent with respect to the purported defaults. 8. The respondent did not consider the explanation as provided by the applicant and issued another 7 days' notice in line with the notice dated 03.06.2023 with respect to initiation of major penalty. The said show cause notice was duly responded to by the applicant vide its letter dated 06.08.2019 by the applicant again apprising the respondent of the fact that it has already undertaken corrective measures for the defaults and requested it to not initiate penalty proceedings. The applicant had setup State-of-the- art residential training centre as per the SOP, at Raipur, with an overall operational capacity of 285 Candidates. As on 31 July 2019, it revised PPWS for completion of the target. It is stated and submitted that without any consideration of the issues that were being faced us, respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 01.07.2019 for imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on account of shortfall in the cumulative total of training commencement as per PPWS submitted by the Applicant. The show-cause notice was duly replied to by the applicant vide its letter dated 06.08.2019 and also providing for an alternative plan of action vide its letter dated 07.08.2019 to complete the project. 50,000/- on account of shortfall in the cumulative total of training commencement as per PPWS submitted by the Applicant. The show-cause notice was duly replied to by the applicant vide its letter dated 06.08.2019 and also providing for an alternative plan of action vide its letter dated 07.08.2019 to complete the project. A copy of the show cause notice dated 01.07.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A/23 and a copy of the response dated 06.08.2019 sent by the applicant is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A/24. 9. The applicant vide letter-dated 19.07.2019 apprised respondent of the fact that the first installment of Rs. 3,78,61,517/- was received by the applicant and as on 30th June 2019, it had incurred an amount of Rs. 5,89,30,783/- which is Rs. 2,10,69,266/over and above the first instalment amount. In addition to the above, applicant has also invested an amount of Rs. 18,91,983/- towards Capex which includes laboratories, office equipment and other infrastructure. The applicant further in the said letter provided respondent with the details of the Training, OJT and placement. The applicant in the said letter also apprised the respondent of the various challenges faced by it during the implementation of the project namely, the fact that all the training programmes offered by it are long terms and when compared with the other courses offered by the other PIA and thus the candidates preferred to opt for short term programmes. Further, the minimum eligibility criteria for all training programmes offered by it is Class XII pass students form science stream and thus it is very difficult to find candidates fulfilling the said criteria. As a result of it, the applicant had to incur losses due to under-utilization of its centres. The applicant further apprised respondent of the fact that the placement opportunities for the trained candidates in the allocated trades are mainly metro cities like Delhi, Hyderabad and Bangalore and the candidates from the State especially girls, are reluctant to migrate to these cities which has significantly affected the Placement Drive. The applicant in the light of the above sought permission form the respondent to provide it a window of 45-60 days to shift centres to a new premises and as well as allow it to mobilize candidates from across the state of Chhattisgarh. The applicant in the light of the above sought permission form the respondent to provide it a window of 45-60 days to shift centres to a new premises and as well as allow it to mobilize candidates from across the state of Chhattisgarh. The same was reiterated by the applicant vide its letter dated 20.07.2019 & 22.07.2019 sent to the respondent seeking 6 months extension for completion of the project and a personal hearing. 10. Thereafter, a personal hearing dated 08.08.2019 was accorded to the applicant by the respondent and the before the said personal hearing vide its letter dated 06.08.2019 again apprised the respondent of the fact that it has taken all the necessary action in respect of the yellow alert and show cause notices issued to it. Thereafter pursuant to the personal hearing, the minutes of the same were sent to the applicant by the Respondent. The applicant kept on submitting the revised PPWD to the respondent for approval time and again by sending letters to that effect including its letter dated 05.09.2019. The applicant also submitted monthly verification certificate (PPMS) issued by Chartered Accountants KY & Co. for the months of August 2019. However, the respondent, without taking in considerations to any of the averments/responses of the applicant, passed an order dated 29.11.2019 imposing a fine of Rs. 29,48,831/- upon the applicant and directed the applicant to deposit the same within 25 days of receipt of the order. The applicant vide its letter dated 30.11.2019 submitted the Project Status Report and further sought an extension of 12 months for completion of the project. Further, the applicant vide its letter dated 31.01.2020 requested the respondent to close the project and issue a revised sanction order on the basis of the students trained and to waive off the penalty imposed on it vide letter dated 29.11.2019. However, no response was accorded by the Respondent. 11. The applicant vide its letter dated 05.02.2020 sought appointment from the respondent to discuss the closure of the Project in furtherance of its letter dated 31.01.2020 and also informed the respondent regarding placement of further 46 trained students in Apollo Hospitals, Bilaspur and also attached the details and photographs of the students placed along with the said letter. However, the respondent did not reply to the said letter. However, the respondent did not reply to the said letter. Due to the onset of COVID-19 from March 2020 onwards, the execution of the project had to be stopped for a considerable period of time without any fault of the applicant. Despite of various letters from the applicant apprising the respondent of the steps taken by the applicant, the respondent vide its letter dated 01.12.2020 terminated the project of the applicant and directed the applicant to return the amount disbursed to it along with interest at the rate of 10% P.A and also sent a cumulative statement containing details of the alerts issued to the applicant vide its letter dated 19.01.2021. 12. The respondent vide its order dated 24.08.2021 blacklisted and debarred the applicant for a period of at least 3 years. The said letter was duly responded to by the applicant vide its letter dated 15.09.2021wherein the applicant requested the respondent to revoke the order of blacklisting and sought extension of time for completion of the project. The respondent sent its reply vide its letter dated 26.11.2021 to the letter dated 15.09.2021 sent by the applicant directing the applicant to file an appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh against the order of blacklisting. The applicant vide its letter dated 27.05.2022 again requested the respondent to revoke the order of blacklisting and termination and grant an extension for completion of the project but the same was not accorded. Instead, the respondent vide its order dated 02.06.2022 reaffirmed the order of blacklisting. The SOP provides for appeal to the Additional Chief Secretary against the order of termination and blacklisting. The applicant thereafter filed an appeal against this penalty of termination vide appeal dated 15.11.2022 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. 13. According to Mr. Rishabh Garg, learned counsel for the applicant, a bare perusal of the said letter would reveal that the same has been passed without giving any reasons. It does not deal with the contentions of the applicant which the applicant has time and again mentioned in its letters and replies sent to the respondent. There is no application of mind in passing of the said letter. It merely rejects the contentions of the applicant by stating them as unsatisfactory. It does not deal with the contentions of the applicant which the applicant has time and again mentioned in its letters and replies sent to the respondent. There is no application of mind in passing of the said letter. It merely rejects the contentions of the applicant by stating them as unsatisfactory. lt is submitted that the said order of termination and blacklisting is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, wrongful, fraudulent, and malafide. A proper show-cause notice describing the action contemplated and the steps that the applicant could take to remedy the default did not precede the order of debar. As such, the debarring is liable to be declared illegal/wrongful/fraudulent. The action of blacklisting is also illegal and arbitrary since no opportunity of hearing or show-cause notice was afforded to the applicant before passing the order of blacklisting. It has led to the civil death of the applicant without following due process of law. 14. It is very much clear from the preface of the SOP that the projects under DDUGKY have to be carried out in a public private partnership where both the parties work together mutually to achieve a common goal(s)/target(s). Further, MoU is entered wherein the parties agree to cooperate with each other to achieve objective(s). It is stated that success of any project depends on performance of reciprocal obligations by the parties and without the support of the Respondent; the execution of the instant project was not possible. The respondent failed to fulfill its part of obligations, cooperate with the Claimant, kept on regularly threatening the applicant and even imposed suo moto penalties, the respondent undermined the very purpose of entering into an MOU at the first place and its subsequent action to terminate the contract of the applicant unilaterally is against the terms of MOU and SOP and is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and is liable to be set aside. 15. The clauses of the SOP clearly stipulate the procedures that have to be followed for imposing the penalty of termination of project. It provides that an opportunity of hearing is necessarily to be given to the PLA before taking any action of termination. Further, that the action of termination should only be taken in exceptional circumstances. The MOU also provides that termination can be done only after giving a 30 days-notice to the PIA, with prior approval of the Project Sanction Authority. It provides that an opportunity of hearing is necessarily to be given to the PLA before taking any action of termination. Further, that the action of termination should only be taken in exceptional circumstances. The MOU also provides that termination can be done only after giving a 30 days-notice to the PIA, with prior approval of the Project Sanction Authority. However, in the present case, the respondent did not adhere to any of the procedures laid down in the SOP and the MOU. It is pertinent to mention here that the clause SF 10.2C, 10.3D and 10.3E of the SOP provides for a period of 30 days to the adjudicating authority to decide an appeal if no personal hearing is accorded to the appellant and a period of 60 days if personal hearing is accorded to the appellant to decide the appeal. The said period of 60 days as provided in the SOP to decide the appeal is very long and the order of blacklisting has remained in effect even during the pendency of appeal, it continued to cause the applicant huge reputational and financial loss. The said period of appeal has also now expired. The applicant vide its letter dated 21.11.2022 intimated the respondent regarding its intention to invoke Arbitration and also informed the respondent of its intention to file an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act seeking a stay on the order of blacklisting. The respondent had not passed any order with respect to the appeal filed by the applicant and has neither responded to the letter dated 21.11.2022 sent by the applicant with respect to intention to initiate Arbitration and thereafter, the applicant vide its letter dated 23.01.2023 has sent a notice to the respondent with respect to initiation of Arbitration and calling upon it for amicable settlement of disputes. The applicant vide letter dated 23.01.2023 invoked Arbitration as provided under Clause 8.1 of the MOU and called upon the respondent for amicable settlement of disputes. However, the same was not responded to by the respondent resulting in failure of amicable settlement of disputes. Clause 8.1 of the MOU does not provide any mechanism with respect to the appointment procedure of an Arbitrator if measures of amicable settlement fails and it only mentions that the dispute shall be referred to State of Chhattisgarh whose decision shall be final and binding. Clause 8.1 of the MOU does not provide any mechanism with respect to the appointment procedure of an Arbitrator if measures of amicable settlement fails and it only mentions that the dispute shall be referred to State of Chhattisgarh whose decision shall be final and binding. Therefore, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation act 1996 shall be applicable in the present case Further, the respondent being an instrumentality of the State of Chhattisgarh, the State of Chhattisgarh cannot carry out Arbitration being an interested party in the present case and being specifically barred by the Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as the said relationship is squarely covered by the Fifth and Seventh Schedule of the Act of 1996. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases, more recently in Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited and Ors. V M/s Ajay Sales and Suppliers, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13250 of 2021, has held that an interested party cannot act as an Arbitrator. Therefore, the State of Chhattisgarh cannot act as an Arbitrator in the present case. It is further stated that the Arbitration clause does not mention which wing/personnel of the state of Chhattisgarh would act as the Arbitrator. The applicant vide letter dated 11.07.2023 has also sent a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 read with Clause 8.1 of the MOU. In the meanwhile, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the action of the respondent, the applicant on 24.07.2023 approached the Hon'ble Commercial Court at Nava Raipur and filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking injunction on the effect and operation of the termination order-dated 24.08.2021 as far as it relates to blacklisitng of the applicant for a period of three years until the appointment of Arbitrator and an injunction restraining the Non-Applicant from taking any adverse action for recovery of any funds from the applicant until the appointment of Arbitrator and the same is sub judice. As such, the respondent has not sent any reply to the letters dated 23.01.2023 and 11.07.2023 sent by the applicant although there is no dispute with respect to the existence of an Arbitration clause as the Arbitration clause 8.1 contains all the essentials of valid Arbitration clause. As such, the respondent has not sent any reply to the letters dated 23.01.2023 and 11.07.2023 sent by the applicant although there is no dispute with respect to the existence of an Arbitration clause as the Arbitration clause 8.1 contains all the essentials of valid Arbitration clause. The Arbitration clause in the present case is duly incorporated in the MOU and the said clause provides for any disputes arising between the parties to the MOU be settled through recourse to Arbitration, the decision of which shall be final and binding upon the parties which iterates the specific and direct intention of the parties to resolve the disputes through Arbitration and as such the clause 8.1 is a valid arbitration clause, and as such, all the pre-arbitration requirements have also been fulfilled by the parties. 16. Mr. Garg further submits that according to Section 11 of the Act of 1996, in case, the parties fail to reach upon an agreement to decide or appoint an arbitrator, either party can move the Hon'ble High Court for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate and settle the dispute in question. To add to that, with Clause 8.1 of MOU stating that the disputes shall be referred to the State of Chhattisgarh goes against the basic principles of fair trial and fair hearing. The principle of nemo judex in causa sua, which states that a party cannot be a judge of its own cause, is to be applied here thereby ensuring fair trial conduct and preserving the natural justice doctrine. In this view of the matter, the applicant has been left with no option but to approach this Hon'ble Court for appointment of an arbitrator since the disputes cannot be referred to the State of Chhattisgarh being an interested party as the Non- Applicant is an instrumentality of the State of Chhattisgarh. 17. On the other hand, Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant has filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 for the appointment of the Arbitrator, by relying upon Clause 8 of the MoU. However, the present request for the appointment of the arbitrator deserves to be dismissed as there is no clause of Arbitration. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant has filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 for the appointment of the Arbitrator, by relying upon Clause 8 of the MoU. However, the present request for the appointment of the arbitrator deserves to be dismissed as there is no clause of Arbitration. In the case in hand, apart from finding place in the heading under Clause 8 as "Arbitration and Applicable Law", nowhere, in the entire clause, the words like "Arbitration", or the "Parties may appoint Arbitrator" found place, which goes to root of the matter, and creates the dispute, with regard to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement, and therefore, the present application deserves to be dismissed as there is no existence of Arbitration clause, and no such arbitration agreement exists between the parties. He further submits that mere use of the words, "Arbitration" or "Arbitrator", in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, to establish whether there is an arbitration agreement, the petitioner has to establish, that, whether at any point of time, there is an indication between the parties to refer to the arbitration is the dispute arises, in the present case, by bare perusal of Clause 8, there appears to be non-existence of the Arbitration Agreement, between the parties, and therefore, for this reason alone the present application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 18. Mr. Tiwari further submits that this Court, in an identical matter being Shri Om Prakash Bansal Educational and Social Welfare Trust v. Union of India & Others {ARBR No. 29 of 2022, decided on 19.12.2023} had dismissed the said petition in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.& Another v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture {2022 SCC OnLine SC 960} and the issue being similar, this arbitration request also deserves to be dismissed. 19. Clause 8 of the MoU reads as under: “8. Arbitration and Applicable laws: 8.1 The parties hereby agree that any dispute arising in connection with this MoU shall first be addressed mutually by the parties. If the said parties are unable to resolve the dispute mutually, the dispute shall be referred to the Government of Chhattisgarh whose decision shall be final and binding on all the parties. Arbitration and Applicable laws: 8.1 The parties hereby agree that any dispute arising in connection with this MoU shall first be addressed mutually by the parties. If the said parties are unable to resolve the dispute mutually, the dispute shall be referred to the Government of Chhattisgarh whose decision shall be final and binding on all the parties. 8.2 In case any aggrieved party seek judicial remedy, the petition shall be filed in the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court. 20. From perusal of clause 8 of the MoU, it is evident that there is no clause for referring the disputes between the parties to the Arbitrator and it only provides for a mechanism to resolve the dispute amicably and the order passed by the State Government shall be binding. As such, the applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for by him in this application. 21. Mr. Garg submits that the applicant had filed an appeal/representation on 15.11.2022 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur requesting to revoke the closure of project and the order of blacklisting, which is stated to be pending as no response has been received by the applicant till date. 22. Before parting with the judgment, this Court expresses its hope and trust that the Government of Chhattisgarh would look into the grievance raised by the applicant in the aforesaid appeal/representation and consider and decide the matter as expeditioiusly as possible. 23. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this arbitration application stands disposed of.