JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Jammu & Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 [“the Act”] for appointment of an independent arbitral tribunal/arbitrator to settle and adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of a contract entered into between the parties, in terms of agreement No.26- A/c/Dy.CE/C/PTK dated 15.07.2009. In terms of an order of allotment dated 14.08.2007 issued by respondent No.3, acting for and on behalf of the President of India, work of loading, leading, unloading and stacking of railway material from Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Uttranchal. Jammu & Kashmir and Rajasthan was allotted to the petitioner for a period of six months for an amount of Rs.1,41,28,309.75. The date of completion of the work was initially 13.02.2008 but the same was subsequently extended upto 30.09.2009.

2. It is alleged that the railways did not provide any work order so as to enable the petitioner to execute the contract in time despite the fact that acceptance letter was issued to the petitioner in the year 2007. It is submitted that the work could be started by the petitioner only in the month of August, 2008 and, accordingly, the contract period was further extended. The contract was formalized by execution of a formal agreement between the parties on 15.07.2009. It is further alleged that, though, the contract was allotted for a period of only six months, it came to be extended for more than ten years. The petitioner claims that he could execute only 50% of the work, as a result, suffered huge losses. It is, thus, case of the petitioner that due to acts of omission and commission committed by the respondents from time to time, he was not allowed to execute the contract in terms of the agreement executed and was even forced to renew his performance guarantee, which was to the tune of Rs.2,14,960/- and TRD of Rs. 7,06,500/-. It is submitted that apart from the performance guarantee, the security deposit of the petitioner to the tune of rupees five percent of the contract value amounting approximately to Rs.4,91,456/- was illegally retained by the respondents during the currency of the contract.

3. Without going much into the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition, suffice it to say that a serious dispute between the parties, arising out of the contract, arose between the parties. In these circumstances, the petitioner claims that he approached the respondents for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause 64(1) of the General Conditions of Contract vide letter dated 04.09.2017. The respondents refused to refer the dispute to the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause aforesaid on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause after having signed the “Supplementary Agreement” and “No Claim Certificate” vide communication dated 27.11.2017.

4. Faced with the refusal on the part of the respondents to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of Clause 64(1) of the General Conditions of Contract, the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking intervention of the Lord Chief Justice or his nominee to appoint an independent Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitrator to adjudicate and determine the disputes that had arisen between the parties.

5. The petition is contested by the respondents. In the written objections filed on behalf of the respondents, it is inter alia contended by the respondents that the arbitration clause is not invokable for the reason that the petitioner has, in lieu of full and final settlement, signed a supplementary agreement along with the final bill and has received all the due payments. It is submitted that in view of the submission of "No Claim Certificate" dated 15.06.2017 by the petitioner, no arbitrator, in terms of the arbitration clause, could be appointed as no arbitral dispute has arisen between the parties.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, following questio