ORDER :

1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996) for appointment of an arbitrator.

2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this arbitration application are that the applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, and engaged in business of providing services related to preparation of detailed project reports (DPR), project management consultancy services (PMC) for roads/expressway/flyovers construction works. Pursuant to a notice inviting tender (NIT) for consultancy services for preparation of DPR including project management of two or more Lane Road projects in the State of Chhattisgarh-package No.2, the applicant submitted its financial proposal on 23.07.2015. The applicant was declared as successful bidder vide letter of acceptance No.246/CGRDC/2015 dated 24.07.2015. A work order for DPR work dated 07.08.2015 and work order for PMC dated 10.02.2017 was issued by the non-Applicant. The total contract amount was Rs.12,37,00,674.25/- including the DPR and PMC services. The parties executed a Contract Agreement No. 01-W/CGRDC/2015-16 dated 07.08.2015 (Contract Agreement) for providing PMC services. During the course of operation of the Contract, a disputes arose as to the non-payment of Applicant's consultancy fee amounting to Rs. 1,11,34,730/-. The respondent have informed the applicant that a penalty of Rs.1,18,11,000/- has been imposed in another project "Fafadih project" as such the amount of penalty is recoverable from the payments due on the instant projects. There being no clause in the present contract empowering the respondent to recover the amount due from another contract, the act of withholding the legitimate claim is non est. With no other choice, the applicant vide letters dated 20.01.2022 and 08.03.2022, had requested the non-applicant for amicable settlement under Special Conditions of Contract (SCC) Clauses 9.2.1(b) & 9.2.2 of the contract agreement. Since, no response was received from non-applicant/CGRDC to the request for amicable settlement.

3. Mr. Tripathi submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant was left with no other option but to issue notice for invocation of arbitration dated 11.07.2022 in accordance with under SCC Clauses 9.2.1(b) and 9.2.2 of contract agreement. The respondent has neither given any reply to the notice for appointment of Arbitrator nor has taken any steps for amicable settlement of dispute. The jurisdiction of State Arbitration Tribunal is limited to the "Works Contract" whereas, the instant contract is for preparation of DPR and PMC services which does not come under the purview of the works contract and therefore, is out of the jurisdiction of the State Tribunal. In this connection, order of this Hon’ble Court in ARBR No. 23/2018 SMEC International v. State of Chattisgarh, a similar view has been taken. The applicant, again vide letter dated 11.07.22 requested the non-applicant to resolve the dispute by appointing an arbitrator under SCC Clause 9.2.1(b) and 9.2.2. Since, no action has been taken by the non-applicant, the applicant is preferring this application under section 11(6) for appointment of Arbitrator.

4. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the work order for DPR work dated 07/08/2015 and work order for PMC dated 10.02.2017 were issued by the non-Applicant. The time limit for preparation of DPR was 8 months and time limit for PMC was 24 months. Being satisfied with the work of applicant, the non-applicant, vide letter No. 2516/CGRDC/2018 dated 01/08/2018 extended the period of PMC services for 6 months with a direction to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.5,13,330/- and deployment of personnel and sub-professional staff. The non-applicant, without any reason arbitrarily started withholding of payments for the PMC work from May 2018. The applicant has deployed the personnel as