Only chief Justice has power to appoint an arbitrator.

1. C.R.P.No.1643 of 1990 arises out of O.S.No.1948 of 1998. C.R.P.No.1644 of 1998 arises out of O.S.No.1612 of 1998. Both C.R.P.Nos.2205 and 2206 of 1998 arise out of O.P.No.172 of 1998.

2. In all these cases, the parties are same and the revision petitioners are also same. In Koyambedu market for collecting parking fees, the same was entrusted to the respondent in all these revisions on the basis of the agreement dated 18.2.1997. It is for the period of one year from 18.2.1997 to 18.2.1998. The total amount payable is Rs.1,04,20,000. Since the respondent committed default in payment, show cause notice was issued. Immediately the respondent filed original application before this Court as O.P.No.655 of 1997 invoking Arbitration clause and interim orders obtained and on that basis continued the collection. On 18.2.1998, the said application was dismissed. The main reason for dismissing the application was the licence period also came to an end. On 19.2.1998, the right of collecting the interim parking fee was entrusted to Ex-serviceman Corporation Limited for a period of three months. Immediately. respondent again filed O.A.No.74 of 1998 to continue the collection of fee work beyond the licence period. Since he did not get any interim orders, the same was withdrawn on 9.3.1998.

3. After withdrawing the original application before this Court respondent filed suit in O.S.No.1948 of 1998 on the file of Second Assistant City Civil Court, Madras and obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.4766 of 1998. It is from the said order, C.R.P.No.1643 of 1998 arises.

4. Respondent obtained ex parte interim order of injunction and again collection work, which was entrusted to Ex-Serviceman Corporation was taken over by him and every day he began to collect a huge amount and at the same time without paying any amount to the petitioners. On 17.4.1998, both sides were heard by the City Civil Judge and an order was passed by the Judge that the respondent herein should pay an amount of Rs.17,54,000 and he was further directed to pay Rs.20,84,000 every two months. The respondent did not comply with the above condition. At the same time, respondent again filed another suit as O.S.No.2612 of 1998 on the file of the second Assistant City Civil Court, Madras and again obtained interim injunction. That injunction was to restrain the petitioners herein from auctioning the collection work.

5. We must understand that the interim order in O.S.No.1948 of 1998 and O.S.No.2612 of 1998 were passed by the same Presiding Officer i.e., the Second Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras and it is only appropriate to note that it was on 17.4.1998 the very same Presiding Officer passed a conditional order that the respondent should deposit certain amounts. After passing the conditional order, the very same Presiding Officer passed the order in O.S.No.2612 of 1998 on 21.4.1998.

6. It is against these interim orders, C.R.P.Nos.1643 and 1644 are filed. On 17.6.1998 after hearing both sides, the interim order in I.A.No.1698 in O.S.No.2612 of 1998 was vacated. On 30.6.1998, the respondent withdraw O.S.No.1948 of 1998. In July, 1998, petitioners held auction and new contractor was appointed for collection of parking fee. In the meanwhile, the respondent again filed O.P.No.172 of 1998 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai in which two Interlocutory applications were filed one to restrain the petitioners herein from interfering with the respondents collecting of parking fee and the second to restrain the petitioners herein from confirming the auction held on 3.7.1998. It is against those orders the other two revisions are filed.

7. Even though I have narrated so much of facts, when these matters came up for admission, the respondent also entered appearance and represented that injunction application has been heard in O.P.No.172 of 1998 and orders are reserved. In view of the submission I did not think of admitting the matters on that date and the learned senior coun