IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No.14 of 2011 THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, BIHAR CABINET ELECTION DEPARTMENT, 7 MANGLES ROAD, PATNA. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER. VERSUS CMC LTD, A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT CMC CENTRE, OLD MUMBAI HIGHWAYS, GACHI BOWLI, HYDERABAD-500032 AND ITS CORPORATE OFFICE SITUATED AT PTI BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, 4, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, A.A.G-12 with Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Advocate. For the respondent : None. ------- 03/ 04.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of order dated 17.09.2010 (Annexure-2) by which this court disposed of Request Case No.04 of 2010 appointing an Arbitrator for redressal of the dispute. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that perhaps the relevant enactment, namely Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, was not brought to the notice of the court while the said order was being passed. He further submits that Section 2(e) of the Act defines ‘dispute’ as any difference relating to any claim arising out of the execution or non-execution of the whole or part of a contract for works or services or both including the rescinding thereof. He also relies upon the provision of Section 2(k) which defines ‘works contract’ as a contract made by the State Government for public - 2 - undertaking with any other person for the execution of any of its works relating to construction, repairs or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, all types of bridge, culvert, factory or work shops or of such other work of the State Government or as the case may be of the public undertaking as the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette specify and included several other contracts enumerated therein out of which learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes on the ‘work shop’ included in the said provision of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Section 22 of the said Act which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, Rule, Order, Scheme, or Contract Agreement entered into before or after commencement of this Act, any dispute as defined in Section 2(e) of this Act shall be regulated under the provisions of this Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder and absence of arbitration clause in any contract agreement shall not have effect of excluding any dispute from the purview of this Act. 5. So far the provisions enumerated in the Act are concerned they had to be considered by the authorities of the State of Bihar along with other provisions of law when the lawyer’s notice was sent to the petitioner of this review petition by the respondent for release of the outstanding amount claimed by it as well as notice sent by the respondent to the petitioner of this - 3 - review petition dated 16.12.2009 for appointment of arbitrator regarding the dispute between the parties, but the authorities themselves dilly dallied the matter and did not appoint any arbitrator nor referred the matter to the authority concerned and allowed the prescribed time to lapse. Thus, the respondent having no remedy left was forced to file the request case and this court being fully aware of the provisions of law mentioned above passed order dated 17.09.2010 which is sought to be reviewed in this petition. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the said order, nor does it find any valid material to take a different view. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)