( 1 ) THE petitioners, by way of this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seek to assail the orders dt. 11-3-2003 passed by the sole arbitrator Srip. V. Vidyasagar in Arbitration Case No. 3 of 2001 impleading the petitioners as parties to the reference.

( 2 ) HEARD both sides. The learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings of the- arbitrator. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are that the arbitration reference has been made to the sole arbitrator appointed at the instance of the parties, in pursuance of an agreement executed in August, 1997 on the plea raised as to the non-joinder of parties namely the petitioners herein. The sole arbitrator impleaded them. The main objection on behalf of the petitioners is that they were impleaded without giving any prior notice and opportunity and further they were sought to be added after a lapse of five years and therefore the same is barred by limitation. To consider the objection raised on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability, it is seen that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High court has been conferred with powers of superintendence overall the Courts and Tribunals. Therefore, the question which necessarily needs to be gone into is as to- whether the sole arbitrator can be termed as Tribunal as contemplated thereunder. The learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to place reliance on the definition clause under Section 2 (l){d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which reads as under :"2 (L) (D ). arbitral Tribunal means a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. "according to the petitioners, every sole arbitrator or panel of arbitrator is statutorily recognised as arbitrary Tribunal and thus they fall within the mischief of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of the division Bench of the this Court in M. Chandrasekhar Rao v. Fort is Financial Services Limited, 2001 (4) ALD 342 (DB) wherein the provisions of Section 11 (6) of the Act came up for consideration and also a question as to whether the persons who are not parties to an agreement can be asked to appear before an Arbitrator and also as to whether the Arbitral Tribunal has any jurisdiction to determine the question as regard the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement or interpret the applicability thereof. However, the question as to whether the sole arbitrator or panel of arbitrators or the arbitral Tribunal as defined thereunder constitute a Tribunal as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has not come up for consideration and hence the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. The said question has come up for consideration in detail in Anglo American Direct Tea Trading co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (AIR 1963 SC 874) wherein it was held as under : the question whether an act is a judicial or a quasi-judicial one or a purely executive act depends on the terms of the particular rules and the nature, scope and effect of the particular powers in exercise of which the act may be done and would, therefore depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts of law established by the State decide cases brought before them judicially and the decisions thus recorded by them fall obviously under the category of judicial decisions. Administrative or executive bodies, on the other hand, are often called upon to reach decisions in several matters in a purely administrative or executive manner and these decisions fall clearly under the category of administrative or executive orders. Even Judges have in certain matters, to act administratively, while administrative or executive authorities may have to act quasi-judicially in dealing with some matters entrusted to thei