HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.26536 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri D.V. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, the Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Sri A.H. Ramakrishna, learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent and, at their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The first petitioner is a Public Limited Company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of drugs. It obtained a loan from the fourth respondent. Guarantees were furnished and certain properties were given as collateral security for the amounts borrowed. The fourth respondent filed A.R.C.No. 378/IF/04/R-1 on the file of the third respondent, against petitioners 1 and 2 and four others, for recovery of Rs.5,60,16,297/- together with interest at 18.5% p.a. with half yearly rests and penal interest at 2% p.a. on the defaulted amounts from 22.09.2004 till the date of realization. The petitioners claim to have filed a written statement thereto. Certain witnesses were examined on behalf of the fourth respondent. Alleging bias against the third respondent the petitioners made a reference to the second respondent either to transfer the proceedings from the file of the third respondent to some other arbitrator or to hear the matter himself. On the ground that the second respondent did not even receive the said reference application, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition, the second respondent states that he does not have jurisdiction to entertain such an application. While Sri D.V. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would vehemently contend that the second respondent has the jurisdiction to pass an order in this regard, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine this and other questions as the petitioners have a right of appeal against an order passed by the second respondent refusing to entertain such a reference. Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation would fairly state that if the petitioners resubmit the application, the second respondent would pass orders thereupon. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to permit the petitioners to resubmit the application within one week from today. The second respondent shall, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application, pass orders thereupon in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:22.03.2010 USD/MRKR