ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused documents placed on record. 2. This is an arbitration application filed by the applicant under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.06.2018 and 19.07.2021 to resolve/ adjudicate the dispute in respect of settlement of accounts between the parties. 3. Having heard counsel for both the parties it appears that there is no dispute that the non-applicant was appointed as General Sales Agent for booking of tickets of Palace on Wheels as per the terms and conditions enumerated in the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties on 04.06.2018 and after completion of the term of three years, same was renewed vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.07.2021 for a further period of three years. 4. It is also not in dispute that during this period, some factual dispute in respect of settlement of accounts between the parties arose due to which applicant did not allow the booked passengers of non-applicant to board the train, to be started from 04.01.2023, hence, the non-applicant instituted Writ Petition No . 66/2023, before the High Court at Delhi seeking direction for allowing his 18 passengers to board on the train/ “Palace on Wheels”. In this writ petition, vide order dated 04.01.2023, the High Court of Delhi permitted the 18 passengers of non-applicant to board on the train, booked by the non-applicant, subject to deposition of a lumpsum amount of Rs.15 lakhs. One another Writ Petition No.5443/2023 was also filed by non-applicant, having apprehension of forfeiture of the amount so deposited by them with the applicant, whereupon an interim order dated 01.05.2023 was passed by the High Court of Delhi for not forfeiting the amount to the tune of Rs.3 crore, deposited by non-applicant with the applicant. 5. It has been pointed out that though both the above-referred writ petitions are pending before the High Court of Delhi, however, in such writ petitions, an order dated 11.05.2023 has been passed to the effect that since an arbitration clause exists in the contract between the parties, therefore, the parties are free to avail their remedies as per arbitration clause, despite of pendency of the writ petitions. 6. In that view, the applicant has filed this arbitration application for appointment of arbitrator. 7. 6. In that view, the applicant has filed this arbitration application for appointment of arbitrator. 7. In the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.08.2018 so also in renewed Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.07.2021, Clause 13 is the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties which reads as under:- “13. Arbitrations and jurisdiction of court In case of any dispute arising in respect of or in pursuance of the terms and conditions mentioned herein above or of the interpretation of this MOU. The same shall be referred to the decision of Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Managing Director, RTDC and the decision of conciliation Act 1996 will be applicable. In case the decision is referred to the court the same shall be subject to Jaipur(India) jurisdiction only.” 8. It is further undisputed that before filing of this arbitration application, applicant served one legal notice dated 01.07.2023, invoking Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding to refer the dispute for arbitration and suggested name of arbitrator but in response thereto, the non-applicant did not extend his consent on the arbitrator appointed by the applicant unilaterally. Hence, applicant filed this arbitration application. 9. During course of argument, counsel for both the parties are ad idem that the dispute, particularly in respect of settlement of accounts between the parties exists and despite of pendency of two writ petitions before Delhi High Court on behest of non-applicant, in view of the order dated 11.05.2023 passed therein by the High Court of Delhi and in view of availability of the arbitration agreement between the parties as contained in para13 of the Memorandum of Understanding, the arbitrator can be appointed, to resolve the dispute. 10. The Arbitration agreement contained in Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding, empowers the Managing Director of applicant-RTDC to appoint an arbitrator which itself is one of the party to dispute. In the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. [(2020) 20 SCC 760], counsel for both the parties are agreeable for appointment of an independent, impartial, neutral arbitrator by this Court. 11. As a final result, the instant arbitration application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 12. This Court appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Retd. HSCC (India) Ltd. [(2020) 20 SCC 760], counsel for both the parties are agreeable for appointment of an independent, impartial, neutral arbitrator by this Court. 11. As a final result, the instant arbitration application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 12. This Court appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Retd. Chief Justice, Address:- R/o-7, Bhagat Vatika, Civil Lines, Jaipur; Mobile No.9414055777; E-mail:-justicemrafiq@gmail.com, as a sole Arbitrator, to resolve/settle the dispute between parties in accordance with provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 13. The appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is subject to the declarations being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to independence and impartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration within the prescribed period. 14. The arbitration fee of the Sole Arbitrator shall be payable in accordance with the provisions contained in the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2009 as amended by the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Amendment), 2017 vide notification dated 23.03.2017 read with 4 th Schedule appended to the Act of 1996 or as determined by the Arbitrator with consensus of parties. 15. The Registry is directed to intimate Arbitrator Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Retd. Chief Justice, for his approval and consent to act as Arbitrator. 16. All other issues may be raised by the parties before the Arbitrator, which shall be considered in accordance with law. 17. Since as per Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitration proceedings are required to be concluded within scheduled time as stipulated therein, it is expected from the parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 04.02.2025 or any other date as informed by the Arbitrator to parties or agreed between parties with the consent of Arbitrator, and further parties shall provide their respective E-mail/ Contact Number/ Mobile Number as also of their authorized representatives/lawyers, appearing on their behalf before the Arbitration Tribunal, in order to facilitate the Arbitrator to send information to the parties, whenever required. The information sent by the Arbitrator, on such address/ E-mail/ cellphone of the parties/their authorized representatives/lawyers, shall be treated as sufficient unless same is not changed. 18. The Arbitration Application stands disposed of accordingly.