IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQUEST CASE No.56 of 2006 Sanjay Kumar, son of Bal Kishore Singh, resident of B/4 Magistrate Colony, Ashiananagar, P.S.- Shastrinagar, District- Patna ………. Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar through the Executive Engineer, B.C.D., Patna Division, North Gandhi Maidan, Patna ……… Respondent. ----------- 5. 30.6.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an independent/impartial Arbitrator for settlement of dispute between both the parties with respect to contractual work agreement under Form F2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Clause 23 of the said agreement with regard to arbitration. The said agreement is standard agreement of the authorities, Clause 23 whereof is with respect to arbitration between the parties in case of any dispute arising between them. This Clause 23 of the agreement has already come under the scrutiny of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this court in Request case No.30 of 2007 (Shambhu Sharma vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.). The Full Bench considered the matter and passed its order dated 6.5.2009, reported in 2009(2) PLJR 1009 holding that the said arbitration clause no.23 in the agreement was deleted by notification dated 18.11.1992 amending Form F2 and deleting Clause 23 which was published in the official gazette dated 23.11.1992 and hence the said clause 23 even if not deleted in the agreement would not be a ground for appointment of an Arbitrator as the notification was 2 binding on the parties. It was also held that Clause 23 thus already stands deleted by publication of the notification in the official gazette and furthermore Clause 23 is not an arbitration agreement and even if it is an arbitration agreement the Superintending Engineer is named as a sole arbitrator. It was also held that reference of Superintending Engineer in the agreement is only as a technical expert regarding technical matters and nothing else and hence decision given by him cannot be an award and the procedure involved would not be arbitration and hence the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not apply. The said decision of the Full Bench is quite clear and unambiguous. Strangely enough learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought to challenge the validity of the said judgment of the Full Bench on various grounds. I am afraid, this is not a forum to raise such objections nor this court intends to entertain such frivolous arguments. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the question of filing an application for appointment of an independent Arbitrator in the instant case as per the aforesaid agreement does not arise at all. However the petitioner will be at liberty to file a civil suit in that regard and the time during the pendency of this case will be excluded while computing the period of limitation. With the aforesaid observations, the request of arbitration is hereby dismissed. Narendra/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )