THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.22933 of 2010 DT.22.12.2010 Between: M/s.United Transport … Petitioner And A.P.Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch.Ramesh Babu Counsel for respondents: Sri M.Dilip Rao The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a certiorari for quashing order, dated 03.03.2010, of the General Manager (LMS) of respondent No.1- Federation. At the hearing, Sri Ch.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while in principle, his client has no objection for reference of disputes to arbitration, he is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.2, who is the Managing Director of respondent No.1-Federation, as he has acted to the detriment of the petitioner on a number of occasions. In my opinion, the writ petition filed for challenging the appointment of Arbitrator cannot be maintained because the aggrieved party is provided with adequate remedies under Sections 12 and 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). These provisions have not only envisaged the grounds for challenge but also the challenge procedure. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to invoke these provisions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has already filed objections before respondent No.2 challenging his appointment and that respondent No.2 has stated that since he is appointed as Arbitrator, the petitioner is bound by such appointment, unless he has followed the procedure under Section 13 of the Act by filing objections within 15 days of his becoming aware of such appointment and that he failed to give proper explanation for the delay in challenging the appointment of the Arbitrator. Section 13(4) of the Act provides that if the person making challenge is not successful, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. Under sub-section (5), where an arbitral award is made under sub-section (4), the party challenging the Arbitrator may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with Section 34 of the Act. As the provisions of Section 13 of the Act are a self contained code governing the procedure of challenge to the Arbitrator, this writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy under the provisions of the Act. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29262 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date:22.12.2010 VGB