IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5169 of 2010 1. M/S RAKESH EATABLES & GENERAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, B-4, INDUSTRIAL AREA, HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SURESH PRASAD CHOUDHARY, S/O LATE BINDA PRASAD CHOUDHARY, R/O C-503, KAUSHALYA ESTATE, BANDAR BAGICHA, P.S. KOTWALI, TOWN & DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA 2. THE BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 5. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL OFFICE, BELA, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 3. 04.04.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the BIADA. The controversy emerging in the present writ application is with regard to the meaning and interpretation of the words “maintenance charges” in the agreement dated 23.1.2008 executed between the parties. Both sides appear to be having their own interpretation which the Court does not consider necessary to take note of as that is a matter to be determined by the appropriate authority. Clause 9 of the agreement contains an arbitration clause. It needs no reiteration and the Counsel for the parties find it difficult to persuade the Court otherwise that when there is an arbitration clause the writ court shall be loath to interfere. Nothing has been placed or demonstrated that the present case comes within the exception clause where notwithstanding the arbitration clause the writ court may still interfere in the matter. Counsel for the parties are agreed that on presentation of a copy of this order before the Managing Director the matter shall be referred by him for arbitration forthwith so that it may be ultimately concluded and Award made within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this before the Managing Director provided the parties themselves cooperate. It is apparent that Clause 9 itself visualizes adequate opportunity to both sides to present their stand before the arbitrator so that it may take a reasoned and considered decision. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)