%l© 1\o9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’FI‘ISGARH ‘ BILASPUR W.P. No. 221 1 of 2006 Pctin‘oncrs 1. M/s duly Shanna incorporated Publication under Pvt Ltd., the a company relevant provisions of Companjss Act, 1956, through its Dirsctor Sumsh Chandra Shanna, son of Lato Banshidhax Shanna, aged about 56 years, resident of Shxee Vihar Colony, Tulsipar, Cuttack, Oxissa. 2. Suresh Chandra Shanna, son of Late Banshidhar Shanna, aged about 56 years, Director, Mis Shanna Publication Pvt. Ltd. resident of Shree Vihar Colon, Tulsipax, Cuttack, Crissa. Vexsus Respondents 1. State of School 01‘ C.G., Education through the Department, Secretary, Ministry D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. The State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), through its Dhtctor, Shahkar Nagar, Raipur. 3. The Secretaly, Ministry of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. og WRI’l‘ PE’l‘I’I‘ION UNDER ARTIC 226 227 O HE CU‘NS’‘‘M‘l‘ION ND (SB: Hon’ble smi Salish R. Agni‘nom‘ J.) Shli B. P Shartoa, Advocate for the pouttoners. Shri Vinay Han’t, Deputy Advocate General with Shxi Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents] State. canon I (Passed on this 15*11 Day ofJanuaxy, 2009) 1. With the consent of the patties the matter is heard tinally. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 6. 1.2006, passed by the Secretaiy (Arbitrator), Government of Chhattisgarh, hool Education Department, whereby the dispute referred to the sole Arbitrator was dropped, observing that it was not possible to settle the dispute between the parties i.e. the petitioners on one hand and the State Council of Educational Research and Training, Chhattisgarh, on the other hand. pf” LE F T lll OF llA Sc T b ar 3. he dispute arose etween the pties pmsuant to the notica inviting tender (NIT) dated 1.2.204, whemin at clause 1. 13 it is 60 prescribed that i there is a dspute in respect of various f i N ame b bv pmvisions of the .I.’I‘. the s shall e deemed the sole Arbitlator i.e. the Secretary, ducation Department, ovt. of E G C'tisgarh, under the provisions of the Arbitlation and hhat Conciliation Act, 996 (for short ‘the Act, 1996’). 1 4. It appears that the Secretaly/Aitrator as not understood the provisions of the Act. If the matter is referred to the Arbitrator under the provisions of e Act, 1996, there is no question of any th conciliau‘on or mediation or proabiJity/ possibility of compromise b between the panics. ’I‘hus, the ord impugned is beyond his er jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions oflaw. Thus, the order dated 6.1.2006 is quashed. ’l‘he matter is remtted back to the i sole Arbitrat i.e. Secretary, School Ecation Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh for considerau‘on an passing of the award, in cordace with law. l acn 5. Th petitioners are at liberty to make an applicah’on, if so advised, for inter relief before the Aritrator. im b In View Of the foregoing, the petition is alowed to the above l extent. N ordr sto costs. o e a Sd/- Thakur Satish K. Agnihotri Judge W L ‘ rb h or du d e