RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (“SSNNL” for short), who was the petitioner before this Court in Special Civil Application No.400 of 2002, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 29.12.2005.

2. To have the idea of the controversy involved in the matter, it is necessary to set out the following facts.

2.1 Special Civil Application No.400 of 2002 was filed by the present appellant-original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) challenging the order passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed by opponent No.1 herein-Bhaven Construction (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) unilaterally despite the fact that a letter was written by the petitioner as early as on 23.11.1998 (Annexure-B to the petition). The sole Arbitrator passed an order on 20.10.2001 on an application submitted by the petitioner and held that, 'he has the jurisdiction to adjudicate claim submitted by the respondent herein'. The petitioner herein awarded a contract to the respondent for 'manufacturing and supplying' of bricks of size 223 mm x 112.5 mm x 70 mm for Brick Lining Works of distributors and Minors in the Command Area of Narmada Main Canal Km. 0.00 to 144.00 i.e. between River Narmada and Mahi (Block No.4A, 4B, 5 & 8). There arose a dispute between the parties. The respondent, after receiving the payment, served the petitioner with notice dated 13.11.1998, a copy of which is found at Annexure-A to the petition. The relevant part of the notice reads as under:-

“We say that, as the disputes and differences have arisen by and between the parties and accordingly, the matter is required now to be resolved through arbitration and therefore, we request your goodself to send the list of three persons from which, we will select one person so as to act as a Sole Arbitrator”.

2.2 This notice was replied by the petitioner (SSNNL) by a letter referred to hereinabove (dated 23.11.1998). It was specifically mentioned in the said letter that:-

“As mentioned in the clause-38 Arbitration shall be conducted in accorded with the provision of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and any statutory modification there off”. It was also mentioned in the said reply that,“

(emphasis supplied)

It was also mentioned therein that:-

“Therefore as per Govt. of Gujarat has passed the Gujarat Public Work Contract dispute Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992. The tribunal constituted under the same act us working at Ahmedabad for all disputes and differences with State Government all the undertakings belonging to Gujarat are adjudicated and settled by the said Tribunal.”

2.3 With a view to bring on record the method and manner in which the respondent was conducting itself, the contents of para 1 of the reply are reproduced hereunder:-

“In connection to your letter Dt. 11-11-98, it has been stated by you that you have requested vide letter Dt. 6-10-98 to take decision based on your letter Dt. 27-7-98. In fact, the letter addressed to the Chief Engineer and copy endorsed to Division Office till today. This has been replied to Chief Engineer through Superintending Engineer as desired regarding letter 6-10-98. As you have tried to misguide higher official regarding the facts replied vide this office letter Dt. 28-8-98. Thus, there is no question taking decision by division office.”

2.4 Vide letter dated 29.12.1998, the respondent was conveyed by reiterating that:-

“..... it is to state that as per clause no.38 of contract arbitration shall be conducted with provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification there off. Therefore, as Govt. of Gujarat has passed the Guj. Public Works Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, your proposal to proceed further in accordance with clause-38 of the contract agreement is not accepted.”

2.5 One thing which clearly emerges from the aforesaid correspondences between that parties is that for the reasons