SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

The ambit of the authority of the Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 again falls for consideration. The petitioner suggests that as to whether there is a concluded contract between the parties has to be assessed by the arbitral tribunal. The respondent insists that it is for the Chief Justice or his designate to decide whether there is a concluded contract between the parties since, without there being a binding agreement, the arbitration clause would not be operative.

There is little dispute as to the facts, but there is a serious conflict as to the legal effect of the admitted facts. The petitioner circulated bid documents to interested parties for procuring MDPE pipes. The bid documents were made out in five sections, including instructions to the bidder; general conditions of contract; and, special conditions of contract. In the instructions to the bidder, the contents of the bidding documents were specified. Clause 16 of the instructions stipulated that the bid would remain valid for acceptance for four months from the bid due date. Clause 41.1 of the instructions provided that prior to the expiration of the period of bid validity, the purchaser would “notify the successful bidder in writing, by fax or e-mail to be confirmed in writing, that the bid has been accepted.” The clause emphasised that the “notification of award/Fax of Intent will constitute the formation of the Contract.” Clause 1.2 of the general conditions specified that the contract would mean the purchase order/contract and all exhibits and documents referred to therein and all terms and conditions thereof together with any subsequent modifications thereto. Clause 30 of the general conditions spelt out the mechanism for resolution of disputes. The opening limb of Clause 30.4 is relevant in the context:

“30.4 Arbitration

All disputes, controversies, or claims between the parties (except in matters where the decision of the Engineer-in-Charge is deemed to be final and binding) which cannot be mutually resolved within a reasonable time shall be referred to Arbitration by a sole arbitrator.”

The rest of the clause provided the procedure and other details pertaining to arbitration.

The respondent submitted its bid on or about November 7, 2006 in the printed bid form contained in the bid documents. The third and fifth paragraphs of the bid need to be noticed:

“We agree to abide by this bid for a period of 4 (four) months from the date fixed for bid opening under Instructions to Bidders and it shall remain binding upon us and may be accepted at any time before the expiration of that period.

… “Until a formal contract is prepared and executed, this bid, together with your written acceptance thereof in your notification of award (Fax of Intent) shall constitute a binding Contract between us.”

It is not in dispute that the bid due date in terms of the tender documents was November 7, 2006.

The petitioner issued a letter of intent to the respondent on March 13, 2007. The letter specified that a detailed purchase order would follow. There is no dispute, and it is apparent, that the letter of intent was issued beyond the period of four months from the bid due date during which the respondent’s bid was to remain valid. The respondent has relied on a letter of March 26, 2007, which is not appended to the papers but the authenticity whereof has not been questioned by the petitioner, that reveals that there were negotiations and correspondence exchanged between the parties subsequent to the bid of November 7, 2006 and prior to the issuance of the letter of intent. It is not necessary at this stage to ascertain as to whether the original bid had been revalidated or, by conduct of the parties, they had modified the condition in the bid document that the bid was to remain valid for a period of four months from the bid due date.

What is on record is a letter dated May 7, 2010 by which th