Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an appeal by the State of Orissa challenging the High Court's order regarding the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court had ruled that a writ petition questioning the order was not maintainable, citing a previous Supreme Court decision which classified the order as administrative. The Supreme Court disagreed, asserting that administrative orders are indeed subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the court acknowledged that since an alternative remedy was available before the appointed Arbitrator, the grounds for challenging the order were limited. The appellant's arguments included that the contract predated the Act, the dispute was stale, and that only a specific arbitrator had jurisdiction. The court concluded that these issues could be raised before the Arbitrator, thus dismissing the appeal without remanding the matter back to the High Court. A subsequent appeal with identical issues was also dismissed for the same reasons. The court did not impose costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an administrative order made by the Designated Judge under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite the existence of an alternative remedy before the Arbitrator. The High Court's conclusion that such an order is not amenable to writ jurisdiction was found to be incorrect (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order made by the Designated Judge under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the appellant to raise all contentions before the Arbitrator appointed by the Designated Judge. The court found the High Court's conclusion regarding the non-maintainability of the writ petition incorrect but noted the existence of an alternative remedy limited the grounds for challenge.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction
- Administrative orders
- Arbitration Act
- Alternative remedy
- Article 226
- Article 136
