( 1 ) THE question which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether, in view of the purported no-claim certificate issued by the 1st respondent herein, an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act") was maintainable.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the parties hereto entered into an agreement as regards work of diversion of Up line from Channel 169m (km 318/5) to Channel 3318m (Km 321/13) between Bisugirsharrif and potkapalli Station on Kazipet - Balarsha section construction of well foundation and substructure, superstructure with prestressed concrete girders deck slab, etc. , for rebuilding of bridge No. 66 as 27 x 18. 1630 M for Up main line across Manair river including earth work in approach in embankment on either side of the bridge including extension of minor bridge No. 65 and 67".

( 3 ) DISPUTES and differences having arisen between the parties, the same had been referred to a Departmental Committee. Allegedly thereafter the 1st respondent continued with the work and filed a no claim certificate. Despite the same a demand was made for referring the claim to an arbitrator which was not acceded to by the petitioner herein. An arbitration application was filed before this Court under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act. A learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated 5-12-2000 allowed the said application.

( 4 ) MR. Sanghi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of these petitions. The learned Counsel would contend that having regard to the arbitration clause contained in clause 63 of the contract, the excepted matters would could not be referred to arbitration. He would further submit that in view of the acceptance of the decision of the Departmental committee by the 1st respondent, as far back as on 4-3-1993, the reference was not maintainable. Reliance in this connection has been placed on V. M. Thomas v. Tata Projects Limited, Hyderabad, 2001 (2) ald 588.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the 1st respondent on the other hand would submit that the reference to the departmental committee was merely a reference to a prearbitral Tribunal. Our attention has been drawn to the no claim qualified certificate from a perusal whereof it appears that a claim of Rs. 20,23,200/- was made therein and the 1st respondent had agreed and undertaken not to make any claim or whatsoever against the South Central railway at any time thereafter which is to the following terms: we hereby admit and acknowledge that we have no claim or claims whatsoever against the South Central Railway administration under or by virtue of or arising out of the contract agreement no. 13/cad/c/sc/ 1991 dated 1-5-1991 for. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Although we preferred 15 claims before the Department Committee constituted in South Central Railway No. . , dated 16-11-1993, the following 3 claims only were considered by the Departmental committee and a meagre amount of rs. 24-69 lakhs paid against our claim amount of Rs. 195. 21 lakhs for these 3 claims since it was only a temporary relief pending arbitration. Hence, we request that the 15 claims totalling to Rs. 1,90,74,334/- (balance amount of claims 1,6 and 15 - rs. 1,70,51,134/- + amount of the other 12 claims - Rs. 20,23,2007-) may either be paid to us along with interest @ 18% per annum, from final date of completion of work till the date of actual payment or referred for arbitration as per clauses 63 and 64 of GCC. We hereby further admit that our only claims now subsisting against the south Central Railway administration under or by virtue of or arising out of the aforesaid contract are as detailed above. We hereby further agree and undertake not to make any claim or claims whatsoever against South Central railway administration at any time hereafter under or by virtue of or arising of the aforesaid contract save and except the subsi