Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri D.D. Kushwaha holding brief of Sri Om Prakash Lohia, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the respondents in Arbitration Application No. 16/2014, 17/2014 and 32/2014 and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondents in Arbitration Application No. 33/2014.

2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that similar controversy is involved in all these four applications and as such all the applications are being heard together.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the Arbitration Application No. 16/2014 are that a notice dated 6th September, 2013 was given by the applicant to the respondent for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve certain dispute. The respondent appointed Sri D.K. Sinha, Deputy Chief Signal & Telecoms Engineer, Allahabad as sole arbitrator vide office memorandum dated 4th October, 2013 (Annexure -CA-1). The arbitrator sent communication regarding his appointment vide letter dated 31st October, 2013 and required the applicant to submit his claims within a month. Instead of submitting claim, the applicant sent a letter dated 28th October, 2013 requiring the arbitrator to comply with the provision of Sections 12, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act before proceeding further. The applicant did not submit any claim before the Arbitrator. Thereafter the applicant filed this application on 25th February, 2014 praying that an impartial sole arbitrator may be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act.

4. The facts of the Arbitration Application No. 17/2014 are that on a notice dated 6th September, 2013 given by the applicant, the respondent appointed Sri Alok Chaturvedi, C.S.T.E. (P&D), Office Central Organization for Railway Electrification, Nawaab Yusuf Road, Allahabad as sole arbitrator vide office memorandum dated 9th October, 2013 (Annexure -CA-1). The arbitrator gave the intimation to the parties including the applicant vide letter dated 15th October, 2013 (Annexure CA-1) requiring the applicant to submit his claim within 30 days. Instead of submitting claim, the applicant has sent a letter dated 28th October, 2013 to the arbitrator requiring him to comply with the provision of Sections 12, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act before proceeding further. Thereafter the applicant has filed this arbitration application with the prayer that an independant impartial sole arbitrator be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act.

5. The facts of the Arbitration Application No. 32/2014 are that the applicant sent a notice dated 24th September, 2013 to the respondent to appoint an arbitrator. The respondent No. 1 appointed Sri A.B. Saran, Deputy Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer, Central Organization for Railway Electrification, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad as sole arbitrator vide office memorandum dated 18th November, 2013 (Annexure -18). The arbitrator sent a letter dated 4th February, 2014 (Annexure 19) to the applicant to submit his claim within a fortnight. Instead of submitting any claim the applicant sent a letter on 24th February, 2014 to the arbitrator requiring him to comply with the provision of Sections 12, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 24 of the Act. Thereafter the applicant has filed this application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act.

6. The facts of the Arbitration Application No. 33/2014 are that the applicant sent a notice dated 24th September, 2013 (Annexure 12) to the respondent No. 1 to appoint an arbitrator. Pursuant to this notice the respondent No. 1 appointed Sri R.P. Chandel, Deputy Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer, Railway Electrification, Jaipur as sole arbitrator vide office memorandum dated 11.11.2013. The arbitrator sent letter dated 22nd April, 2014 and 4th February, 2014 to the applicant requesting him to submit his claim within a fortnight. Instead of submitting any claim, the applicant has filed this application under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator.

7. Since, controversy ra