The specified venue in an arbitration clause denotes the seat of arbitration, thus limiting jurisdiction to designated courts and excluding others.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

[2. Petitioner has sought appointment of an arbitrator invoking Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to settle the dispute between the parties. Petitioner had earlier submitted a representation before the respondents vide Annexure-8 dated 04.01.2021. As per the petitioner, the agreement between the parties was entered on 18.06.2014 for excavation of trenches and laying of OFC through ducts, testing, commissioning and maintenance of OFC in 40 blocks of 8 Districts (in the State of Tripura) and 4 blocks of 1 District (in the State of Meghalaya) by RailTel on behalf of BBNL.

The contract value was Rs.47,42,411/-. The date of completion of project was 180 days from the date of issue of Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 18.06.2014. The work could be completed successfully on 27.10.2017 and handed over to the authorities who issued a Provisional Acceptance Certificate on the same date. The respondent issued a revised LOA on 03.02.2020 whereby the volume of work was reduced and the amount of GST beyond the scope of original LOA dated 18.06.2014 was communicated for negotiation to which the petitioner did not accede. Petitioner contended that the original cost of LOA dated 18.06.2014 was Rs.44,47,441/- and the cost of subsequent LOA dated 03.02.2020 by way of amendment was Rs.39,86,594/-. Petitioner alleged illegal deduction of Rs.4,60,847/- from his client based on the subsequent LOA. He also stated that GST is not at all applicable in the agreement and as such it cannot be imposed. Petitioner alleged that he is entitled to receive Rs.4,60,847/. The performance bank guarantee of Rs.2,37,150/-, Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.79,050/- along with statutory interest and remaining 5% of the amount of final bills which remained uncleared. Petitioner contended that he was facing extreme financial crisis due to outbreak of COVID 19 and is being pressurized by the Nationalized Banks from whom he has taken various loans for completion of the work allotted by the respondents. Petitioner, therefore, requested the respondents to pay the aforesaid amounts within a period of 15 days failing which he would be forced to file an appropriate application before the Court of law.

[3. He then approached this Court in WP(C) No.204 of 2022 which was disposed of by order 30.06.2022 granting liberty to the petitioner to make his claim before the respondents in terms of Clause 4.64 providing for the Settlement of dispute and Arbitration so far as the disputed or unsettled issues are concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked Clause 4.64 of the NIT which forms part of the Agreement by serving the mandatory notice dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure-10). That was replied by the respondents vide Annexure-11 dated 05.05.2023 where the respondents conveyed that since keeping three arbitrators will be a costly affair for both the parties, they proposed that a sole arbitrator be appointed by CMD, RailTel from the panel of arbitrators maintained by RailTel which includes senior retired government officials. That was responded to by the petitioner vide Annexure-12 dated 12.05.2023. Further correspondence took place by the respondent RailTel wherein they suggested three names of arbitrator from RailTel panel in terms of the arbitration clause which are as under:

(i) Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Former Director (consumer mobility), BSNL.

(ii) Shri Din Dayal Singh, Former PCSTE/Con/NFR.

(iii) Shri Akhil Agarwal, Former DG(S&T)

[4. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in the present application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 invoking the Clause 4.64 of the Agreement between the parties. Petitioner took a plea that the proposed Arbitrator is ineligible to act as Independent Arbitrator being a former employee of RailTel Corporation in view of Section 12 (5) of the 1996 Act as amended read with Schedule VII thereof.

[5. Respondents h