Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, C.J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by Hyderabad Cricket Association for issuance of writ of Prohibition against the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of respondents 4 to 6 arising out of Arbitration Application No. 26 of 2011 from proceeding further, declaring as without jurisdiction.

2. We have asked the learned lawyer for the petitioner as to how the writ of Prohibition can be issued against the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'). We think, without deciding the preliminary issue, we cannot proceed further. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Arbitral Tribunal is not a private forum as it has been formed under the provisions of the Act. It is the settled law that writ of Prohibition can be issued not only against the subordinate Courts and quasi judicial authority, but also against Tribunal. We have noted his argument.

3. In this case, we have to decide whether we can entertain the Writ Petition for issuance of writ of Prohibition treating the instant Arbitral Tribunal is having a statutory character. We think that this Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of Prohibition for the reasons as stated hereunder and the same are backed by the materials supplied by the petitioner itself. There has been a written agreement, dated 16.10.2014 between the petitioner and the third respondent. This agreement in substance was in relation to the construction of stadium, was containing various terms and conditions. One of its clauses, which is relevant for our purpose, is required to be noted, hence reproduced hereunder.

"15. Miscellaneous:

i) This Agreement is made and governed by and shall be constructed in accordance with the Laws of India. Subject to sub-clause (iii) herein below regarding resolution of disputes by Arbitration, the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in the twin cities of Hyderabad-Secunderabad, hereby waiving all right to any other jurisdiction or venue to which they might otherwise be entitled.

ii) In the event any part of this Agreement shall be deemed to be in contravention of law or otherwise invalid or unenforceable the said part shall be construed to the extent, if any, as the law shall permit to accomplish its intent and the legality, validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.

iii) All disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be settled through Arbitration, to be conducted at Hyderabad by three Arbitrators in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or any statutory modification thereof. The parties shall bear the costs of arbitration equally in the first instance subject to the 'final award as to costs that may be passed by the Arbitrators."

4. Thus, it will appear therefrom that the parties thereto have entered into arbitration agreement for resolution of the dispute mentioned aforesaid. Thereafter, the third respondent in and about 2011 made an application before the learned Single Judge of this Court for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act. His Lordship by order, dated 02.08.2011 allowed the application granting relief as prayed for therein. His Lordship appointed Dr. Justice Motilal B. Naik, a retired Judge of this Court, to resolve the disputes relatable to agreement, dated 16.10.2014. While passing the said order of appointment, His Lordship concluded as follows:

"Since the agreement contains an arbitration clause and as the disputes between the parties are relatable to the said agreement, I find that the applicant has made a valid ground for appointment of an arbitrator."

5. Thus, His Lordship has been satisfied that the disputes arose between the parties are covered by the arbitration agreement and made such appointment. This order was not challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So, the order containing the findings of His Lordship with regard to the formation of Arbitral Tri