J.K.Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioners in this writ petition have questioned the decision, of the judge designated by the Chief Justice, dated November 29th, 2004, given in an application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and also the consequential order of the acting Chief justice dated February 24th, 2005 appointing the arbitrator.
(2.) The undisputed facts are these. On the terms and conditions of tender No. ASN/3 of 2002-03 certain construction works connected with railway quarters were given to the third respondent on March 17th, 2003. The works were to be completed by December 16th, 2003. Alleging failure to complete the works even after grant of repeated extensions, the petitioners rescinded the contract. Consequently, by a letter dated August 31, 2004 the third respondent called upon the petitioners either to settle its legitimate claims or to refer the case for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause.
(3.) According to clause 64{l)(i) of the general conditions of contract (they were applicable to the contract in question) the agreed procedure for arbitration was, "In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties here to as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or difference on any account or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to, or if the Railway fails to make a decision within 120 days, then and in any such case, but except in any of the 'excepted matters' referred to in clause 63 of these conditions, the contractor after 120 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters, shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration.";