IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.156 of 2011 Sunil Kumar S/o Shreekant Yadav, resident of Village-Insraingot, P.S. Kumarkhand, District-Madhepura. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Irrigation Department, State of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Madhepura. 5. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Purnea Zone, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Nahar Anchal, Purnea Zone, District- Purnea. 7. Executive Engineer, Sichai Pramandal Murliganj, P.S. Murliganj, District-Madhepura. 8. Awar Pramandal Padadhikari, Sinchai Awar Pramandal Udakishunganj, P.S. Udakishunganj, District-Madehpura. 9. Junior Engineer, Sinchai, Awar Pramandal, Udaikishunganj, District-Madhepura. …..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, A.A.G. XI. ----- 03/ 17.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner directing the authorities to permit the petitioner to complete his remaining repairing work of both the banks of canal in Kishunganj disstry at R.D.27.00 ( L &R) as the petitioner was restricted from finishing the said remaining repairing work by local public because police force was not provided by the concerned authorities and also for a direction to the respondents to pay the rest amount/allowances of the said repairing work as per new rate with interest in case of old rate and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is quite apparent that entire matter is with respect - 2 - to partial execution of the work contract and payment/refund with respect thereto. Section 2(e) of the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, especially provides that “Dispute” would include the aforesaid matter and Section 2(k) defines “works contract” which includes construction, repairs of the canal which is the subject matter here. Section 9 of the Act provides that where any dispute arises between the parties to the contract, either party shall, irrespective of whether such contract contains an arbitration clause or not, refer within one year from the date on which the dispute has arisen, such dispute in writing to the Tribunal for arbitration in such form and accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such fees, as may be prescribed and the said dispute shall be tried and decided by the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal which according to Section 11 had the powers of the court. Since the aforesaid Tribunal has now become functional, the petitioner should have approached the said Tribunal instead of coming to this court as the Tribunal was competent to decide such dispute in accordance with law. 4. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal with respect to the matter in dispute. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)