1N THE HIGH COURi' OP CHHA'mSGAKH : B1LASPUR W.P.No.839 of 2006 Petitioner M/s. Pradeep Paper Mart (A Proprietorship finn), fhroughy its Sole Proprietor Satish Kuinar Daui, S/'o Shri Beni Raia Dani, aged about 40 years, Occupation Business, R/o Daaipara, Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhatdsgarh. Versus Respondents 1. State of Culiattisgarh, Through fhe Secretaiy, School Bducation Department, Maatralaya, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur, Chbattisgarh. 2. The Secretaiy (Arbitrator under the agreeniers.t), School Education Departiaent, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. State Council of Educational Research aad Training, fhrough its Director, Shaakar Nagar, Kaipur, Cfabattisgarh. 4. Mission Director, Rajiv Gaiidhi Shiksha Mission, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaa, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Chltattisgarh. WRIT Pfi'I'mON UNDER ART1CLE 226/2^7 OFTHE CONS'm'U-nON OP1ND1A (SB; Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate with Ms Astha Siagh Sisodia, Advocate for the petitioner, Slul Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Sttri Bhaslcar Pyasi, Pauel Lawyer for the respondents/State. O RD E R (Passed on tbis 15th Day ofJanuary, 2009) 1. With the consent ofthe parties the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2006, passed by the Secretaiy (Arbitrator), Govenunent of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, whereby ftie dispute referred to the soJe Arbitrator was dropped, observiag that it was not possible to settle the dispute between the parties i.e. the petitioner on one tiaad aad Itie State Council of Educational Research aad Tranung, Chhattisgarli, on the oftier hand. 3. The dispute arose between ttie parties pursuant to the notice iuviting teuder (NiT) dated 16.2.2004, whereia at clause 1.13 it is 4. 5. 6. Thdcur -- T-- prescribed ttiat if there is a dispute iu respect of various provisions of ftie N.l.T. ftie sam.e stiaU be decided by the sote Arbitrator i.e. the Secretary, Education. Department, Govt. of y. C.titiattisgarh, under fh.e provisions of the Arbitra.ti.on and ConciUation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996'). It appears that the Secretary/ Arbitrator has not understood tfae provisions of tfae Act. U' ttie iiiatter is referred to the Arbitrator uader the provisions of th.e Act, 1996, fhere is no questK>n of any conciliation or inediation or probabitity/possibility ot coinpronuse between the parties. 'l'hus, ttie order impugned is beyond fais jurisdiction aad. contraiy to ftie provisious oflaw. Thus, fhe order dated 6.1.2006 M quasbed. Ttie inatter is remitted back to the sole Arbitrator i.e. Secretary, Scfaool Education Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarti tbr considerat»naad. passing of the award, in accordaace witti law. The petitioners are at iiberty to make aa application, if so advised, for iaterun relief before the Arbitrator. In view of the tbregotug, the petition is atlowecl to the above extent, No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge