1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4103 OF 2010. Shri Devendra Gajananrao Dhakate -: VERSUS :- Mr. Mahendrasingh Yadav and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010. Heard Shri A.R. Sharma, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri V.V. Bhangde, learned Counsel for respondent no.2/caveator. The Arbitrator has passed a preliminary order under Section 16 holding that he has jurisdiction to arbitrate in the matter. The learned Counsel for petitioner is relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 2007 [5] Mh.L.J. 441 (Gas Authority of India Ltd. .vrs. Keti Construction (I) Ltd. and others) to urge that the Writ Petition is maintainable. Shri V.V. Bhangde, learned Counsel is relying 2 upon the Constitution Bench judgment reported at [2005] 8 SCC 618 (S.B.P. & Co. .vrs. Patel Engineering Ltd.), to urge that the Constitution Bench has found that the High Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction in such matters, as appropriate forum to challenge the said adjudication is provided for in the Act itself. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, I have perused both the judgments. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gas Authority of India (supra), does not lay down that adjudication under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be challenged in Writ Petition before this Court at interlocutory stage. It only stipulates that if, such lack of jurisdiction is not pointed out at the earliest to the Arbitrator, the plea regarding the same cannot be raised in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. The controversy therefore, squarely stands covered by the Constitution Bench judgment which stipulates that order on such an objection must be assailed in accordance with the Scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in proceedings under Section 34 only. In present facts, I, do not find any reason to interfere in the matter in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore not entertained. Needless to 3 mention that all contentions raised by Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for petitioner are kept open for proceedings under section 34 of the Act. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.