Court No. - 4 Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 51 of 2024 Applicant :- M/S Vedic Projects Private Ltd. Thru. Director Gaurav Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secretary/ Prin. Secy., Irrigation And Water Resources And Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Concilliation Act 1996. In deference to the order passed by this Court, learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that the affidavit has been filed and the name proposed by the concerned authority has been withdrawn as it was proposed due to lack of knowledge of order passed by this Court. This Court had passed the following order on 27.11.2024:- "This case is listed under Chapter 12 Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. As per office report, learned counsel for the applicant failed to provide the copy of the pleadings on record alongwith the provisions, therefore, the letter seeking consent could not be issued to the proposed Arbitrator. Ms.Anam Usmani, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ram Raj, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Arbitrator has been appointed by the Chief Engineer (Sharda Sahayak) through letter dated 18.11.2024 and a copy of the same has been sent to the applicant through registered post, a photocopy of which has been placed before the court, whereas when this application was pending and an Arbitrator was proposed by this Court he could not have done so. It is to be explained by the officer, who has appointed the Arbitrator, as to when the application for appointment is pending and it is settled law that a party cannot appoint any Arbitrator of his choice unilaterally, how he has appointed the Arbitrator in the matter, particularly when this court has already proposed the name of the Arbitrator by means of order dated 23.10.2024. A copy of the letter has been provided to learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. It is noticed that earlier also the Chief Engineer had appointed a retired Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P., Lucknow as an Arbitrator by means of order dated 19.09.2024 as recorded in the order dated 23.10.2024, but since he had expired and an independent Arbitrator was to be appointed by this court on the application moved by the applicant, this Court had proposed the name of Shri Om Prakash Verma, (Retired District Judge) as an Arbitrator. The said order was passed after hearing learned counsel for the parties. Even then the Chief Engineer has appointed an Arbitrator of his choice, which could not have been done. It also indicates that the concerned Chief Engineer has no respect for the proceedings and the orders passed by this court. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not dispute that the authority cannot appoint the Arbitrator in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. He seeks a week's time to seek instructions. Let the copy of the aforesaid letter be placed on record by learned counsel for the applicant through a supplementary affidavit. Steps filed. Office to verify and proceed as per law." In deference to the aforesaid order, Shri Om Prakash Verma, (Retired District Judge) has furnished the disclosure and accorded his consent in accordance with law to be an Arbitrator vide letter dated 03.12.2024. In view of above Shri Om Prakash Verma, (Retired District Judge), resident of D-313, Crystal View Apartment, Near Chinhat Tiraha, Govind Plaza, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, Contact No. 7376005888 is appointed as an Arbitrator to enter and arbitrate with regard to the dispute between the parties herein. The application is disposed of accordingly. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to Shri Om Prakash Verma, (Retired District Judge) forthwith. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Akanksha/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench