1. M/s. Senbo Engineering Limited, the petitioner before this Court, had a claim that it demanded to be referred for arbitration as provided under the contract. The State Government, the other party disputing the petitioners claim, nominated an arbitrator. The petitioner felt that the appointment of the arbitrator was made in breach of the relevant provisions of the contract. It, therefore, moved the Chief Justice under Sec. 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 making a request for appointment of an arbitrator on the plea that the nomination made by the State Government was nonest. The designated Judge took the view that since an arbitrator was already appointed, the petitioners request for appointment of arbitrator was not fit to be accepted. The application filed by the petitioner was, therefore, dismissed. But in view of certain observation made in the order passed by the designated Judge, the petitioner decided to appear before the person nominated by the State Government as arbitrator and raise the issue of maintainability of the proceedings before him (on the plea that his appointment was not in accordance with the provision of the contract). It appear