JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th of May, 2007 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Arbitration Application No.31 of 2005 by which the learned Judge had rejected the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’) filed at the instance of the appellant.

3. The respondent-Union of India invited tenders for construction of 6 unit Type-II and 24 unit Type-I new quarters at Phulera Sub Division Office under Railway Inspector, Kishangarh. An agreement was executed between the parties on 24th of April, 1996 under which in response to the said tender, the appellant submitted his offer, which was accepted and after completion of all kinds of formalities, the work order was issued to the appellant on 22nd of September, 1996. The initial estimated cost of the work was Rs.32,74,904.37. In the said agreement, there is a Clause 64 in which the arbitration clause has been inserted. Clause 64 of the arbitration clause runs as under:-

“(i) In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or differences on any account, or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to or if the Railway fails to make a decision within 120 days then and in any such case but except in any of the excepted matters referred to in clause 63 of these conditions, the contractor after 120 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration.

(ii) The demand for arbitration shall specify the matters which are in question. Dispute or difference only such disputes or differences in respect of which the demand has been made shall be referred to arbitration and other matters shall not be included in the reference.”

4. The appellant, upon sanction of the work, requested the respondents for issuing him a work order so that he could commence the work. On his request, work order dated 22nd of February, 1996 for a sum of Rs.32, 17, 641.29 indicating the date of completion of work as 21st of February, 1997 was issued to the appellant, which was received by him on 7th of May, 1996. Since the quantity of the work was much more than the work order was issued, supplementary work order was subsequently issued by the respondents on 30th of December, 1997 for a sum of Rs.4,99,471.36 and further another supplementary work order issued on the same date i.e. 30th of December, 1997 for a sum of Rs.3,25,865.02. Thereafter, another work order to the tune of Rs. 2,17,748.63 was issued on 22nd of June, 1998. Hence, the total work orders for a cost of Rs. 42,60,726.30 were issued to the appellant. When some disputes arose between the parties on the question of payment of money, which was withheld by the respondents, the appellant requested the respondent from time to time to take deposition of the material remained and prepare his final bill, but his request was not acceded to. Accordingly, finding no other alternative, the appellant raised a dispute by issuing a notice dated 27th of December, 2004 and requested for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract appended with the agreement. When the respondent had failed to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract, the appellant filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench for appointment of an Arbitrator.

5. As noted herein earlier, by the impugned order, the application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act was rejected by the High Court on the ground that since