This application tiled seeks appointment of an Arbitrator for settlement of the claims and disputes between the parties herein with regard to the amounts claimed as due and payable by the respondents to the petitioner in respect of an agreement No.53/DEN/S/BG/ SC dated 3-10-1990.

2. The petitioner asserts that the 1st respondent issued a tender notice for the work - Warangal-Water Supply Bulk Water Drawal from Warangal Municipality and provision of overhead tank and pipelines. The petitioner was one of the bidders in the tender. His bid was accepted and he was awarded the work. The work could not be completed within the time stipulated and the petitioners request for extension of time was also accorded.

3. During the currency of the work, the petitioner asserts, the capacity of the overhead tank was raised from 20,000 gallons to 33,000 gallons. The petitioner executed this increased quantum of work. The petitioner asserts that the scope of the work was enhanced in excess of the specifications as per the agreed items under the agreement between the parties and as a consequence, the value of the work increased from Rs.4,20,858-25 ps., to Rs.10,61,121-70 ps. The respondents failed to settle and pay in full the amounts due to the petitioner and therefore he preferred writ petition (W.P. No.26369 of 1995) seeking settlement of the final bill. By the judgment dated 1-8-1996, W.P. No.26369 of 1996was disposed of by this Court directing the 1st respondent to pay the admitted amount of Rs.1,00,000-00 to the petitioner for construction of the original specification of the overhead tank, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment of this Court. This Court further directed the respondents to hold negotiations with the petitioner for payment with regard to the additional works claimed to have been executed by the petitioner viz., the construction of 33,000 gallons capacity overhead tank; and if the negotiations failed, the respondents were directed to pay to the petitioner the amounts admitted by them for both the works and refer the matter to the arbitrator or review committee for resolution of disputes that still remained unresolved and that such arbitration or review shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of reference.

4. As the respondents have, despite the order of this court above, failed to refer the dispute between the parties to the arbitration, despite the petitioner making several representations in this behalf, this arbitration application is filed.

5. It is the defence of the respondents, in particular the 1st respondent that the total work executed by the petitioner (both the original and additional) is of a value of Rs.10,40,164-87 ps., (the value of the original work at Rs.1,29,693-65 ps., and the value of the additional work at Rs.9,10,471-22 ps.,). This was a figure arrived at in a negotiating committee meeting held on 28-10-1996. As against this amount payable to the petitioner, the amount due from the petitioner is Rs.35, 191-53 ps., (some of the details are: the value of the unreturned cement bags at RS.390-00 and the unreturned value of the steel supplied for execution of the work Rs.18,357-00). The petitioner was stated to have been paid Rs.10,56,809-00. Thus, according to the respondents, the petitioner himself is due to the respondents a sum of Rs.35, 191-53 ps.

6. The above is the dispute between the parties on the amounts claimed by the petitioner as due from the respondents and claimed by the respondents as due from the petitioner.

7. On the substantive merit of the petitioners application seeking reference to arbitration, the respondents contend that as the dispute is with regard to the additional work done by the petitioner, the same is not covered by the arbitration clause and falls within the excepted matters and therefore no reference to arbitration could be made and the petitioner cannot invoke the arbitration clause.

8. It is the admitted position between the partie