MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ.

( 1 ) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 13 (4) and Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India.

( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has incorporated an additional prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to club the cases of similar nature to be decided by the same Arbitrator preferably by a retired judge of this court rather than giving these matters for adjudication to different Arbitrators. The writ petition is contested by both Union of India and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

( 3 ) WE have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the aforesaid pleas.

( 4 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there are six different contracts and that the said contracts revolve around similar issues of facts and law and, therefore, the said issue should have been referred to a sole arbitrator instead of referring the same to different Arbitrators. The next submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the provisions of Sectio