( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 11 (6) (c) of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) filed by Prasar Bharati for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

( 2 ) THIS petition again raises the questions which repeatedly arise during proceedings for the appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11 (6) (c) of the Act. The petitioner had entered into an Accredition Agreement dated 31st May, 1995 with the respondent by which the respondent was required to make payment of advertisement and other related bills jointly and severally with advertisers. Clause 5 of the agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:

"5. In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under these presents or in connection therewith except as to any matters the decision of which is specially provided for by these presents, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an Officer appointed to be the arbitrator by the Director General, Doordarshan. It will be no objection that the arbitrator is a Government Servant, he has expressed views on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to these presents. In the event of the arbitrator dying, neglecting or refusing to act or resigning or being unable to act for any reason, it shall be lawful for the director General, Doordarshan to appoint another arbitrator in place of the outgoing arbitrator in the manner aforesaid. The arbitrator may, from time to time, with the consent of the parries to these presents enlarge time for making and publishing the award. Upon every and any such reference, the assessment of the costs of an incidental to the references and the award respectively shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator. Subject as aforesaid, the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the rules thereunder and any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force shall be deemed to apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. "

( 3 ) THAT admittedly upon disputes arising between the parties and in accordance with the above clause, the petitioner had called upon the Director general, Doordarshan and the respondent to appoint an arbitrator by addressing a communication to the Director General as provided in the aforesaid Clause on 6th March, 2003 by a letter admittedly received by the Office of the D. G. , doordarshan as well as the respondent. It is also not in dispute that as per the arbitration clause between the parties, Shri Rakesh Sehgal, Deputy Director general was appointed as the Arbitrator vide letter dated 1st September, 2003 to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. However on 24th november, 2003, Shri Sehgal declined to continue as arbitrator. It is stated that the arbitrator vacancy has not been filled up as all the officers have withdrawn in view of lack of time. Consequently the petitioner has moved this petition under Section 11 (6) (c) of the Act for appointment of the arbitration as per the arbitration agreement as the Director General, Doordarshan has waived his right to appoint the arbitrator and accordingly the petitioners Counsel prays that the Court may appoint an independent arbitrator. In reply to the arbitration petition, Mr. R. K. Dhawan appears on behalf of the respondents and has contended that the petition is barred by time and it is the petitioner who has abandoned the arbitration proceedings and thus the present petition under section 11 (6) (c) of the Act is barred by limitation. The position of law in respect of these issues was summed up by this Court in para 5 of Prasar Bharati v. M/s. Stracon (India) Limited, reported as 114 (2004) DLT 562=2004 VII AD (DELHI) 513, which reads as follows:

"the principles of law which therefore govern the appointment/ constitution of an Arbitrator/arbitral Tribunal under Section 11 of the act whi