- (1.) This writ petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 24.02.2000 passed in Request Case No. 39 of 1998(R). The writ petition is filed pursuant to the observations made in L.P.A. No. 408 of 2001, dated 13.12.2002 (Annexure-5).
(2.) Brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.1, the petitioner-BCCL, has floated tender vide tender dated 30.07.90 for tree plantation work at Patherdih Coal Washery. The respondent No. 1 submitted the tender and the work order dated 23.8.90 was issued for Rs. 5,51,112.60. As per the terms of the agreement, the contract was to be completed within three years. According to the respondent No.1, he executed an agreement for value of Rs.5.51 lacs and after completion of the work, the work site was damaged owing to fire. The further case of the respondent No.1 is that he had executed the work of tree plantation again but no further payment has been released by the petitioner. The respondent No.1 raised a dispute with regard to payment of Rs.15,57,252/-. The respondent No.1 through his lawyer issued an arbitration notice demanding a sum of Rs. 15,57,252/-. Since the differences between the parties could not be settled, the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 11(6) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was contested by the petitioner contending that Clause-9 of the Agreement, which contends Arbitration Clause, has been specifically deleted and, therefore, there is no question of adjudication of the dispute by the Arbitrator. Upon hearing the arguments of both the parties vide order dated 24.2.2000 in Request Case No. 39 of 1998(R), the learned Single Judge has allowed the application filed under Section 11(6) (c ) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Mr. S.K. Choudhary, retried Judge, Patna High Court to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and for passing the award in accordance with law.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the order passed in Request Case No. 39 of 1998(R), dated 24.2.2000, the appellant filed Civil Review No. 20 of 2000(R) to review the said order and the said review application was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed L.P.A. No. 408 of 2001 which was also dismissed on 13.12. 2002 by the following orders: "4. 13.12.02 Heard the parties. Respondent no.1 filed Request Case No. 39 of 1998 ( R) under section 11 (6) (c ) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was disposed of on 24.02.2000, appointing Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and for giving award in accordance with law. Appellants filed Civil Review No. 20 of 2002 (R) to review the said order which was dismissed on 08.06.2001. Thereafter they have filed the present appeal against the order refusing to review the said order, which in our opinion, is not maintainable. In view of decision of the apex Court in Konkan Railway Corporation and another versus Rani Construction Private Limited, 2002 2 SCC 388}, petitioners' remedy against order dated 24.02.2000 was to file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This appeal is dismissed accordingly.";