1. This application under Sections 10 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') has been filed by the applicant Singhal Construction Company, which is a partnership firm, through its partner Gopal Chand Singhal, with the prayer that an independent arbitral tribunal may be appointed for resolution of its disputes with the respondents.

2. Factual matrix of the case as averred in the application is that the applicant is a partnership firm registered as 'A' class contractor with the Public Works Department. The respondents invited tender for construction of 5 Links Roads under MDFF Packages. Offer of the applicant being found lowest, the respondents accepted the same and awarded contract for aforesaid construction to the applicant vide order dated 17.10.1998. Estimated cost of the work was Rs. 69,92,335.00 and stipulated time for completion of work was 15 months from 11.10.1998. Thus, date of commencement and completion of work were fixed respectively as 11.10.1998 and 10.01.2000. The applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,49,000/- as performance guarantee/bank guarantee in favour of the respondents. In order to execute the work an Agreement 10/98-99 was executed and signed between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents did not provide lay out plan in time, changed the specifications time and again and also failed to provide clear site to the applicant for construction. The respondent-department failed to acquire the land, give compensation to the land holders reluctantly, who knocked the door of the courts of law and stay order were granted in their favour. The respondents also failed to settle the agitation and protest of the villagers in constructing the roads because their crops were standing on the site and the site was still in their possession and cultivation. For all these reasons, the work could not be completed. After lapse of stipulated date of completion of the work, the respondents department without consent of the applicant extended interim time period up to 30.06.2000. It is argued that the respondents were fully responsible for non-execution of the work in time, even then without affording an opportunity of hearing and notice to show cause, the respondents unilaterally imposed deducted liquidated damages @ 0.03% of Rs. 1,84,342/- on the applicant. Yet, despite request of the applicant to finalize the work at that particular stage, the respondents failed to finalize the bill. There was delay in execution of the work, which was beyond control of the applicant and the applicant was not liable for such delay.

4. It is argued that in the circumstances so narrated, the applicant exercised arbitration clause 23 of the agreement signed between the parties and requested the respondents to refer the dispute to Empowered Standing Committee. When no action was taken, the applicant moved application for appointment of arbitrator before this Court. However, during pendency of the application, the respondents referred the dispute to the Empowered Standing Committee. The applicant filed objections with regard to constitution of the Standing Empowered Committee. Even then, the Standing Committee passed the award. The applicant challenged the award by filing objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the District and Sessions Judge, Alwar which vide judgment dated 16.05.2009 set aside the award. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submitted that independent arbitrator may now be appointed so as to resolve the disputes between the parties. It is argued that Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. SPML INFRA Ltd. & Another, 2015 (4) WLC (Raj.) 375 and Single Bench Judgment of this Court in M/s. Mohammed Arif Contractor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another, 2015 (4) WLC (Raj.) 32 holding that Clause 23 in the format of agreement in Public Works Department of State Government is not a arbitration clause, h