{w IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH BILASPUR W.P. No. 2231 of 2006 Petitiomr M1 s. Shanda Oifset, A Proprietorship firm, mgistex‘ed under ths Indian Parmsxship Act, 1932, through its Panner Ami Kumar Adhlakha, S/o Late Shri R. S. Adhlakha, aged about 44 was, Occupation: Palmer, M/s. $haxda OEset, R/o F—l, Ratan Palace, Main Roacl, Katora Taiab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents l. State of Chhattisgarh. Through the Secmtaly, Schoal Education Depaxtment, Maxitralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Ghhattisgarh, The Secretmy (Amitxator under the agreement), Schoo1 Education Deparunent, Raipur, Chhattisgarh‘ 3. State Council of Educationai Research and Training, thmugh its Director, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhatu‘sgarh. 4. Mission Dimctor, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Saxva Shiksha Abhiyan, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION yNDER AR’I‘ICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA {J (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Rajeev Shn'vastava, Advocate with Ms Astha Singh Sisodia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn‘ Vinay Harm Deputy Advocate General with Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents] State. l O R. D E R (Passed on this 15th Day ofdanuary, 2009) 1: With the consent ofthe parties the matter is heaxo iinally. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated (3.1.2006, passed by the Secretary (Arbitrator), Government of Chhattisgarh, School 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 petitioner on one hand and the State Council of Educational Research and Training, Chhatn‘sgarh, on the other hand. x’l k 1 1 \ \ I \ .. .. The dispute amse betvgeen the parties pursuant to the notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 16.2.2004, wherein at clause 1. 13 it is plescribed that if there is a dispute in respect of various provisions of the N.I.T. the same shall be decided by the sole Arbitrator i.e. the Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act, 1996’). It appears that the Secretary] Arbitrator has not understood the provisions of the Act. if the matteris referred to the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Act, 1996, there is no question ofany conciliation or mediation or probabihty] possibility of compromise between the parties. Thus, the order impugned is beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions oflaw. Thus, the order dated 6.1.2006 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the sole Arbitrator i.e. Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh for consideration and passing of the award, inaccordance with law, , The petitioners are at liberty to make an application; if so advised, for interim relief before the Arbitrator. In View of the foregoing. the petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. //, Thakur Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge