IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1023 of 2000. M/s. Kulhari Constructions Company, Jhunjhunu VERSUS State of Rajasthan & Others Date Of Order ::: 10/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. R.B. Mathur, Counsel for the petitioners Mr. M.S. Raghava, AAG for the respondents BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer :- 1. “issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby quash and set aside the impugned Demand Notice dated 19.05.1999 (annexure- 10); 2. issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof an thereby it be held that the proceedings under the Act of 1952 are in violation to the conditions of the Contract as without invoking the Arbitration Clause the proceedings under the Act of 1952 have been initiated illegally; 3. issue any other appropriate order or direction in the nature which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner ; and 4. thereby cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the humble petitioner”. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice dated 19.05.1999 has wrongly bee issued against the petitioner without making any reference to the arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause in the contract. Learned counsel for the respondents has also contended in the reply that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of arbitration clause mentioned in the contract. It is also contended by learned counsel that the matter should have been referred to the arbitrator. Both the parties have contended that there an an arbitration clause in the contract and the petitioner should have approached the competent authority by filing an application for appointment of the arbitrator in the case in respect of present dispute, which is a subject matter of this writ petition. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the same as well as arbitration clause, which has been quoted by both the parties in their respective pleadings, I think it fit and proper to direct the petitioner to move an application under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer and appoint the arbitrator in the case. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the competent authority for reference and appointment of the arbitrator under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within a period of one month. The interim stay order passed by this Court on 31.03.2000 shall remain in force only for a period of one month from today. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/