Hon'ble TRIVEDI, J.—All the Arbitration applications have been filed by the same applicant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator relying upon the same Clause 24 of the agreements executed between the parties, in respect of the various work orders and hence all are decided by this common order.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents Dr. A.S. Khangarot has raised the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of these applications by relying upon the decision of this Court in case of M/s. Mohammad Arif Contractor vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., decided on 08.04.2015 (S.B. Arbitration Application No.90/2012) by submitting that clause-23 of the agreement in the said case, which is similar to clause-24 of the agreement in the present cases, has been held to be not an arbitration clause. He further submitted that so far as the present cases are concerned, there is a specific bar against referring the disputes to the arbitration as contained in clause 25 of the agreement, and therefore also the applications are not maintainable. However, the learned counsel Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal for the applicant relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Surya Construction Company vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013 (4) WLC (Raj.) 418 submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court relying upon the said clauses 24 and 25 of the agreement in question, has appointed the arbitrator and that if this Court does not agree with the decision of the Coordinate Bench, the matter be referred to the Division Bench in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others vs. Prahlad Hiranand Advani and others, AIR 1995 SC 1893.

3. In order to appreciate, the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it will be beneficial to reproduce the clauses 24 and 25 of the agreement in question, entered into between the parties, which read as under:-

“24 Dispute Redressal System

24.1 If any dispute or difference of any kind what-so-ever shall arises in connection with or arising out of this Contract or the execution of Works or maintenance of the Works there under, whether before its commencement or during the progress of Works or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the Contract, it shall, in the first instance, be referred for settlement to the competent authority, described along with their powers in the Contract Data, above the rank of the Engineer. The competent authority shall, within a period of forty-five days after being requested in writing by the Contractor to do so, convey his decision to the Contractor. Such decision in respect of every matter so referred shall, subject to review as hereinafter provided, be final and binding upon the Contractor. In case the Works is already in progress, the Contractor shall proceed with the execution of the Works, including maintenance thereof, pending receipt of the decision of the competent authority as aforesaid, will due diligence.

24.2 Either party will have the right of appeal, against the decision of the competent authority to the Standing Empowered Committee if the amount appealed against exceeds rupees one lakh.

24.3 The composition of the Empowered Standing Committee will be:

I. One official member, Chairman of the Standing Empowered Committee, not below the rank of Additional Secretary to the State Government.

II. One official member not below the rank of chief engineer, and

III. One non-official member who will be technical expert of Chief Engineer's level selected by the Contractor from a panel of three persons given to him by the Employer.

24.4 The Contractor and the Employer will be entitled to present their case in writing duly supported by documents. If so requested, the Standing Empowered Committee may allow one opportunity to the Contractor and the Employer for oral arguments for a specified pe