Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.07.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu appointing an arbitrator in pursuance of an arbitration agreement between the parties. Mr. Akbar Khan, appearing for the petitioners, at the outset has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SBP & Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr. [ : (2005) 8 SCC 618] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 41 has held as under: Then the question is whether the Chief Justice of the High Court can designate a District Judge to perform the functions under Section 11(6) of the Act. We have seen the definition of "Court" in the Act. We have reasoned that the intention of the legislature was not to entrust the duty of appointing an arbitrator to the District Court. Since the intention of the statute was to entrust the power to the highest judicial authorities in the State and in the country, we have no hesitation in holding that the Chief Justice cannot designate a District Judge to perform the functions under Section 11(6) of the Act. This restriction on the power of the Chief Justice on designating a District Judge or a non -judicial authority flows from the scheme of the Act.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was rendered on 26.10.2005 and the impugned order under challenge before this court is dated 17.07.2006 whereby the District Judge, Jhunjhunu in the purported exercise of power conferred by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court had appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Counsel submits that the order dated 17.07.2006, passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu, impugned before this Court, flies in the face of the enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of SBP & Co. (Supra) rendered on 26.10.2005. Face with the situation aforesaid, Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari, appearing for the respondents, has very graciously accepted the legal position and has no objection in the event the impugned order dated 17.07.2006 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu is set aside. He however prays that the respondents be given liberty to move an appropriate application in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court referable to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act' of 1996).
(3.) TO my mind the prayer made by the counsel for the respondents is reasonable, fair and innocuous. Hence respondents would be at liberty to invoke their rights under Section 11 of the Act of 1996. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 17.07.2006, passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu is quashed and set aside.;