l%f ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetitionNo, 1428 of2005 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. Bharat Gour aged about 40 years S/o Shri Chunnilal Gour. 2. Smt. Saroj Gour aged about 35 years W/o Shri Bharat Gour both resident of Plot No. 5, Vivekanand Colony, Bhilai, 491001 Tah. & Distt. Durg CG. VERSUS 1. Arbitrator District and Sessions Judge (RTD) Shri M.V. Rjendaran B.A. B.L. Flat No. 2 Sindur Palance No. 10 Thirumoorthy Street T. Nagar, Chennai-600017. 2. GMAC Financial Services India Limited (Formerly GMAC TCFA Finance Limited) Padma Complex 2 Floor 467 Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai- 600035. (WR1T PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTnrmiON OF INDIA) rSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri. J.) Present : Shri V.G.<Tamaskar; Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Aiiup Majumdar, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 7th day ofNovember, 2098) 1., 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing tinally. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction to transfer arbitration proceedings pending before the respondent No. 1 and fuitfaer to quash the proceedings drawn by respondent No. 1 from the date of its initiation till the date ofissue ofcertiorari. 5. In pursuance to the Clause XVI of the arbitration agreement (Annexure P/l) between the petitioner and respond^nt No. 2 (private parties), the respondent No. 1 was appointed as sole arbitrator under the provisions ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'theAct,1996'). The petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the arbitrator/respondent No. 1. Section 16 of the Act, 1996, provides fbr questioning of jurisdictional competence of arbitral tribunal before the Arbitral Tribunal itself. The petitioner, without resorting to provisions of Section 16 ofthe Act, 1996, has directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, fhis petition is not maintainable on two grounds, firstly, no writ can be issued against a private party, and secondly, there is a provision for questioning of jurisdictional competence of the Arbitration Tribunal under the provisions ofSection 16 ofthe Act, 1996. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1100/05, application for ad-interim writ, stands disposed of Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Sahu