( 1 ) THIS Arbitration Application is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, (for short "the New Act") read with Para 2 of the Scheme for appointment of Arbitrators framed by the Chief Justice of this Court under subsection (10) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that arose between the parties in connection with construction of staff quarters at Vikarabad tdu (D) under written Agreement no. 94 (CAO/c/sc/92 dated 20-8-1992.

( 2 ) THE material facts leading to filing of this application are the following: the applicant - a partnership firm - is a railway Contractor. It was entrusted with the work of construction of staff quarters at vikarabad TDU (D) by the redpondents (hereinafter referred to as "the Railways" for short) under the aforesaid agreement. The approximate value of the work that was to be done under the agreement was rs. 32,65,944/- and the schedule date of completion was 23-12-1992.

( 3 ) THE agreement contained an arbitration Clause in Clause 64 of the general Conditions of the Contract, which forms part of the agreement. The relevant portions of the said Clause are as under:"64 (1) (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 difference 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 decision within a reasonable time, then and in any such case, save the excepted matters referred to in Clause 63 of these conditions, the contractor, after 90 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matter, shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration. (1) (ii) and (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . (3) (a) Matters in question, dispute or difference to be arbitrated upon shall be referred to for decision to- (3) (a) (i ). . . . . . . . . (3) (a) (ii) Two Arbitrators who shall be Gazetted Railway Officers of equal status to be appointed in the manner laid in clause 64 (3) (b) for all claims of rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs) and above, and for all claims irrespective of the amount or value of such claims if the issues involved are of a complicated nature. The General Manager shall be the sole judge to decide whether the issues involved are of a complicated nature or not. In the event of the two arbitrators being divided in their opinions the matter under disputes will be referred to an Umpire to be appointed in the manner laid down in clause (3) (b) for his decision. (3) (a) (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (b) For the purpose of appointing two arbitrators as referred to in sub-clause (a) (ii) above, the Railway will send a panel of more than three names of Gazetted Railway officers of one or more departments of the Railway to the contractor, who will be asked to suggest to the General Manager one name out of the list for appointment as the contractor s nominee. The General Manager, while so appointing the contractor s nominee, will also appoint a second arbitrator as the railway s nominee. . . . . . . . ". Even though the work was scheduled to be completed on 23-12-1992, it was actually completed on 28-2-1996. Each party blames the other for the delay. The case of the applicant was that final bill was not paid to it immediately after completion of the work, but was paid very belatedly on 31-3-1998. In the meanwhile, the applicant by its letter dated 27-3-1998, addressed to the Chief engineer/c/plg. , (Construction), 2nd respondent herein, raised as many as six claims and demanded their settlement. As there was no reply, the applicant again wrote to the 2nd respondent by its letter dated 26/29-6-1998 requesting r