IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9031 of 2006 Niraj Construction (P) Ltd, A private limited company having its registered Office at Daud Nagar, Ward No 10, Dist - Aurangabad, Bihar through its Managing Director Keshav Prasad, son of late Ram Rekha Prasad, Daud Nagar, Ward No 10, P S - Daud Nagar, Dist - Aurangabad - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Engineer-in-Chief (Central), Department of Water Resources, Patna 4 The Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Dehari, Dist - Rohtas 5 The Superintending Engineer, Durgawati Construction Circle, Bhitari Bandh, Chenari (Sasaram) At & PO - Chenari, Dist - Rohtas 6 The Executive Engineer, Durgawati, Right Bank Canal Division, Chenari, At & PO - Chenari, Dist - Rohtas - Respondents ----------- 2 05.12.2008 The petitioner had entered into a contract with the State Government for certain works to be performed. Petitioner claims that the rates fixed in the contract were provisional and had to be finalized later on. In course of finalization, without notice to the petitioner, not only were the rates reduced but penalty imposed for delay in work which was not at all attributable to the petitioner. Petitioner asserts that there was delay in acquiring the land and handing it over to the petitioner. The Executive Engineer concerned had considered those matters and recommended for extension of time but those facts were also not brought to the notice of the authorities which resulted in imposition of penalty and order for realization of the amount from bills payable to the petitioner. Counter affidavit and rejoinder have been filed. It has been stated that the petitioner wanted the State for settlement of dispute by arbitrator but State has refused. Learned counsel for the State submits that facts being in dispute, this Court should not interfere in the matter. Having considered the matter, in my view, basic facts are in 2 serious dispute. It is a fit matter in which both parties should resort to arbitration where all the matters can be looked into by the arbitrator and a decision taken after determining the facts in dispute. I, therefore, direct that on petitioner’s filing a notice for arbitration to the concerned Chief Engineer, the Chief Engineer would agree to the matter to be referred to arbitrator in accordance with the agreement who would decide the matter at the earliest. Both parties will cooperate in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an interim relief from this Court. Interim relief is not possible to be granted because once arbitration proceedings are resorted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the arbitrator has ample power to pass interim orders. This writ application stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)