£ c^ ^^^L-/ BIvteion B< ITU-HE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT^ILASPUR WRIT PETITION fd N0. J^cOF 2010 PETITIONER £'.".•t.0.^ •ff' y^'i^ ^?^" ^^v ,^\^\^A ^vb' l:^'f M/S ESKAY BUILD WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR SHRI A.K. AGARWAL S/0 SHRI S.K. AGARWAL AGEDABOUT 42 YRS, R/0 27/4, MOTILAL NEHRU NAGAR EAST, BHILAI DIST : DURG CC.G.) VERSUS RESPODNENTS : .•ii»a ^lsl>^''v-~' /' 1) UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY THROUGH:- THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (CON) SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILASPUR (C.G.) ^2) THE DEPUTT CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (CONS.), SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS. ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OR THE LIKE ni!- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W. P. (C) No. 1610 of 2010 Petitioner M/ s Eskay Build Works Private Lixnited Versus Respondents Uruon oflndia& anofher WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DB: Hon'ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, & Hon'ble Mr. N. K. Aganval, JJ. Shri AnMt Pandey, Advocate for tlie petitioner. Ms Naushiaa Afrin Aii, Advocate for the respondents. 3,- 4. ( Passed on this 23rd day of.June, 2010 ) Per I. M. Qudd.usi, J. Heard leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner as weU as leamed counsel for fhe respondents, who is appearuig on advaace notice. By ineaas of fhis writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashiag of flie Annexure P/l which is the letter dated 19.1.2010 issued by the DY CEE/C-II/BSP, Soufh East Ccnta-al RaUway, Electrical Construction. It appears that the petitioner appUed for fhe arbitration to which tUe respondents oppose by fhe impugned order. Further, fhe petitioner has prayed for a direction not to recover fhe aiaoimt without proper adjudication in the coinpetent foruiEi. We are not uiclined to iaterfere at this stage, as fhe inatter regarding appoiatnient. ofArbitrator is not the subject niatter before us and we caruiot decide the question of appoiatment ofArbitrator. Leamed couusel apprises this Court that two appUcations for appoiatruent of Arbitrator are pending under the Arbitration and jK^KiS!SiiSS^SSS3 ConciUation Act, 1996. Therefore, we are not iaclmed to interfere at fhis stage. However, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction fhat fhe representation dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure P/9), wliich is said to be moved before the respondents, be considered and disposed of, in accordance wifh law, as early as possible. No order as to costs. _-. —-' , Sdl- . l^.Quddusi judge Sd/- , N.IC.Agrav Judge ThaJcuT