SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRAYER of adjournment is declined. Heard.
(2.) THE prayer of the applicant in the instant application is as under:- " (i) to remove respondent No. 1 as Arbitrator from conducting arbitration in dispute raised in order No. RSO/lpgpt/hlg/jprt/99/06 Dtd. 30. 10. 2000 under Section 11 (6), u/s. 12, u/s. 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) to appoint any other independent person or may appoint any retired Judge of High Court of Rajasthan as the Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the applicant and respondent No. 2 by securing appointment and independent Arbitrator u/s. 11 (8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and (iii) to give direction to the new Arbitrator appointed to start the Arbitration proceedings fresh and decide the dispute between the applicant and respondent No. 2 under Section 11 (11) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. " In view of the controversy involved in the matter, I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant statutory provisions. Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `1996 Act') provides as under: " 12. Grounds for challenge (1) When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality. (2) An Arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall, without delay, disclose to the parties in writing any circumstances referred to in sub-section (1) unless they have already been informed of them by him. (3) An arbitrator may be challenge only if- (a) circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality, or (b) he does not possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties. (4) A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made. " Section 13 which contains challenge procedure read thus:- " 13. (1) Subject to sub-section (4), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator. (2) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (1), a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall, within fifteen days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or after becoming aware of any circumstances referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 12, send a written statement of the reason for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal. (3) Unless the arbitrator challenged under sub-section (2) withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge. (4) If a challenge under any procedure agreed upon by the parties or under the procedure under sub-section (2) is not successful, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. (5) Where an arbitral award is made under sub-section (4), the party challenging the arbitrator may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with Section 34. (6) Where an arbitral award is set aside on an application made under sub-section (5), the court may decide as to whether the arbitrator who is challenged is entitled to any fees. " Section 16 relates to competence of arbitral tribunal to rule its jurisdiction and reads as under:- " 16. (1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections, with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement and for that purpose- (a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the terms of the contract; and (b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause. (2) A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence; however, a party shall not be precluded from raising such a plea merely because that he has appointed, or participated in the appointment of, an arbitrator. (3) A plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings. (4) The arbitral tribunal may, in either of the cases referred to in sub section (2) or sub-section (3), admit a later plea if it considers the delay justified. (5) The arbitral tribunal shall decide on a plea referred to in sub section (2) or sub-section (3) and, where the arbitral tribunal takes a decision rejecting the plea, continue with the arbitral proceedings and make in arbitral award. (6) a party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with Section 34. " A conjoint reading of sub section 3 of section 12 and sections 13 and 16 of 1996 Act demonstrates that the question of impartiality of the arbitrator is to be raised before the arbitrator himself, who is competent to decide such question. The Division Bench of this Court also took the same view of Union of India vs. M/s. Maheshwari Builders 2006 (1) WLC (Raj.) 308.
(3.) FOR these reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant application and the same stand dismissed. .;