SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD.
(2.) THE applicants in the instant matters have prayed to appoint independent Arbitral Tribunal under Section 10 and 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Indisputably the agreement executed between the parties contained clause 23 which reads as under:- " Clause 23: If any question, difference or objection whatsoever shall, arise in any way in connection with or arising out this instrument or the meaning of operation of any part thereof or the rights, duties or liabilities of either party, then save in so far as the decision of any such matter as of either party, then save in so far as the decision of any such matter as herein before provided for and been so decided, every such matter consisting a total claim of Rs. 50,000/- or above, whether its decision has been otherwise provided for and whether it has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated and as regards the rights or obligations of the parties as the result of such termination shall be referred for decision to the empowered standing committee which would consist of the following: (i) Administrative Secretary concerned. (ii) Finance Secretary or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary. (iii) Law Secretary or his nominee not below the rank of Joint L. R. (iv) Chief Engineer cum Addl. Secretary of the Concerned Department. (v) Chief Engineer concerned (Member Secretary) The Engineer-in-Charge on receipt of application along prescribed fee (the fee would be two percent of the amount in dispute not exceeding Rs. One lakh) from the contractor shall refer the disputes to the Committee within a period of one month from the date of receipt of application. " The grievance of the applicants is that the respondents failed to refer the case to the Standing Committee under clause 23 within stipulated period of 30 days from the receipt of the application, they have lost their right and applicants are entitled to get the sole arbitrator appointed by this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on M/s. Universal Construction and Trading Company vs. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. (AIR 2004 Allahabad 115), wherein the Allahabad High Court observed in para 32 as under:- " The last contention of the opposite parties is that the designated arbitrator has already given the award which is a decree as provided under Section 36 of the Act. It has been further argued by the opposite parties that the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act are administrative in nature and the decree already passed by the arbitrator cannot be set aside. In my opinion, the award given by the Managing Director is without jurisdiction. His right to proceed ceases after moving of the application under Section 11 by the petitioner. " It is borne out from material on record that the respondents have already made appointment of Standing Committee pursuant to clause 23 on the demand of the applicants, prior to filing of the instant applications, therefore right to appoint Standing Committee even after expiry of 30 days did not get forfeited in view of the ratio propounded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. vs. Tata Finance Ltd. (2000 (8) SCC 151), it was held as under:- " As far as Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is concerned, if one party demands the opposite party to appoint an arbitrator and the opposite party does not make an appointment within 30 days of the demand, the right to appointment does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days. If the opposite party makes an appointment even after 30 days of the demand, but before the first party has moved the court under Section 11, that would be sufficient. Only then the right of the opposite party ceases. " For these reasons, the applications being devoid of merit stand dismissed. . ;