( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Gori, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the State Government. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

( 2 ) THE short question involved in this petition is that if civil suit is filed prior to the enactment of Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "act"), whether the Civil Courts jurisdiction is ousted or is required to be transferred to the Tribunal or whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try such suits.

( 3 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No. 151/1986 in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Gondal for the recovery of Rs. 5,72,575. 82 on the ground of recovery of the amount towards security deposit, non-payment of the work already undertaken, loss of profit etc. , of the works contract entered into by the petitioner with the respondent State Government. In the said Civil Suit, Application Ex. 24 was filed by the State Government on 28-10-1988 to stay the proceedings of the Civil Suit on the ground that there is a clause of arbitration and the matter can be referred to the arbitrator. The learned Civil Judge on 30-11-1989 passed the order below the said application Ex. 24, whereby the application was dismissed and the request of the State Government to stay the proceedings of the Civil Suit in view of Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act was dismissed. A statement is made at the bar that the said order is not challenged before any higher forum and is operating as on today.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, on 29-7-2002, on behalf of the State Government, application Ex. 174 was filed to transfer the proceedings of the suit to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The learned Judge passed the order on 31-7-2002, below Application Ex. 174, whereby he found that the matter is required to be transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the Act and, therefore, he ordered accordingly. It is that order of the learned Judge, which is under challenge in this petition.

( 5 ) MR. KANABAR, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of "gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board thro. Executive Engineer v. Heirs and L. R. of Pravinbhai Patel" (Coram: HH Mehta, J.), reported in 2002 (2) G. H. J. , 70 and unreported decision of this Court in the case of "state of Gujarat v. Valji Puna and Co. " (Coram: NN Mathur, J.) passed in Civil Revision Application No. 1286 of 1996 to contend that Section 21 would not be applicable in a matter where the dispute is not pending under the Arbitration Act in a Court and he has submitted that the learned Judge has committed error in exercising the jurisdiction while transferring the matter to the Tribunal constituted under the Act.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the State Government, Mr. Gori, learned AGP, while supporting the order passed by the learned Judge, has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of "sardar Patel University v. Patel and Co. ", reported in 1999 (2) GLH, 1264 and in the case of "sorathia Velji Ratna and Co. v. Gujarat Agricultural University and Anr. ", reported in 2000 (4) GLR, 3666 to contend that even if the dispute is in respect to the contract prior to the Act came into force, the matter is required to be transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the Act and the learned Judge has rightly passed the order.

( 7 ) HAVING considered the above and the scheme of the Act and Section 21 of the Act is relevant for the purpose of this petition, which reads as under:"21. THE provisions of the Arbitration Act, shall in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, cease to apply to any dispute arising from a works contract and all arbitration proceedings in relation to such dispute before an arbitrator, umpire, court or authority shall stand transferred to the Tribunal. "on true construction of Section 21 of the Act