Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—Heard Shri Tarun Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The prayer made in the application is for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The further prayer raised in the application is for a direction being issued to the Arbitrator to be appointed to adopt “fast track” proceedings as contemplated under Section 29-B and to make an award in terms of the provisions of Section 29-B (4).

3. The fact that there does exist an arbitration agreement is not in dispute. However for the purposes of evaluating the rival contentions, it would be apposite to extract the arbitration clause which reads thus.

“Any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoever or regarding any right, liability, act omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this agreement (other than those in respect of which the decision of any person is by the agreement expressed to be final and binding) shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation or some officer or retired officer of the Corporation or retired officer of other oil PSUs or retired Senior Central Government Officer who may be nominated by the Chairman and Managing Director. The dealer will not be entitled to raise any objection to any such arbitrator on the ground that the arbitrator is or was an officer and/or share holder of the Corporation or that he has to deal with or dealt with the matters to which the contract relates or that in the course of his duties as an officer of the Corporation he had expressed view on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference in the event of the arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason, the Chairman and Managing Director as aforesaid at the time of such vacation of office or inability to act, shall designate another person to act as Arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the point at which it was left by his predecessor. It is also a term of this contract that no person other than the Chairman and Managing Director or a person nominated by such Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation as aforesaid shall act as Arbitrator hereunder. The cost of arbitration shall be shared equally by the parties. The award of the arbitrator so appointed shall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties to the agreement subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification of or re-enactment thereof and the rules made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause.”

4. The fact that this clause was invoked by the applicant is not disputed. On the record is a communication dated 26 October 2015 issued by the Corporation appointing D.N. Krishnamoorthy, an officer of the Corporation as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between parties. It would be relevant to pause here and note that consequent to the appointment of the concerned Arbitrator being perceived to have been effected by the provisions of Amending Act 2015 which came into force on 23 October 2015, the Corporation on 6 January 2016 addressed a communication to the applicant drawing its attention to the provisions of the Act as amended and seeking its consent to the appointment already made. This communication was obviously addressed bearing in mind the provisions of Section 12 (5) of the Act. The applicant does not dispute that such consent was in fact duly conveyed.

5. The sole Arbitrator upon receipt of the notice of his appointment addressed a notice to parties on 29 September 2016, directing them to file their statements of claim as well as reply to the claim and to complete pleadings. Upon receipt of the claims and replies, a fu