JUDGMENT : SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. On 04.09.2025 a coordinate Bench of this court has passed the following order: "1. Heard Sri Suyash Manjul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways. 2. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator. 3. It is urged that an agreement was entered between the parties relating to disputes arisen under an Engineering Contract dated 25.01.2023. 4. It is urged that the said contract by a reference incorporated the conditions of the General conditions of contract as applicable to Railways and in Clause 64, it provides for a comprehensive Dispute Resolution Mechanism. 5. It is urged that since disputes had arisen between the parties, accordingly, the petitioner by means of his notice dated 23.01.2024 had invoked the arbitration clause and required the respondents to cooperate in appointment of a sole arbitrator. 6. It is also urged that despite service of the said notice, the respondents did not participate nor cooperated in formation of the Arbitral Tribunal, accordingly, the instant petition has been filed. 7. Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel submits that he has written instructions to states that as per Clause 63.1, it is the General Manager, Northern Railways who is authority competent to appoint an Arbitrator. 8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, apparently, in light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC Smo MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, (2025) 4 SCC 641 (known as Core-II Case), the submission of the respondents that the Arbitrator is to be appointed by the General Manager, Northern Railway pales into insignificance, as a person who is ineligible to act as an Arbitrator cannot appoint an Arbitrator too. 9. In the instant case, the contract, applicability of the arbitration clause as well as the live disputes between the parties is not in question, accordingly, this Court finds that it is a fit case for appointment of an Arbitrator. 10. Accordingly, this Court proposes the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyendra Singh Chauhan, (Retd, Judge of this Court) R/o- 4/150, Vishesh Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P., Mob No. 9454001000 to act as an Arbitrator. 11. 10. Accordingly, this Court proposes the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyendra Singh Chauhan, (Retd, Judge of this Court) R/o- 4/150, Vishesh Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P., Mob No. 9454001000 to act as an Arbitrator. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall provide a complete set of the paper-book to the office of this Court within a period of one week which shall be forwarded to the proposed arbitrator to seek his consent under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 12. List this matter on 08th October, 2025 for further orders." 2. The proposed Arbitrator has signified his consent to act as an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties. 3. Accordingly, the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed . Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyendra Singh Chauhan (Retd, Judge of this Court) R/o-4/150, Vishesh Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P., Mob No. 9454001000 is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 4. The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyendra Singh Chauhan (Retd, Judge of this Court).