Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. This appeal under Section 17(2) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl in C.M. Application No. 19/2012 arising out of Declaratory Suit No. 2 of 2012 directing the Arbitral Tribunal not to proceed with the arbitration proceeding in ICA Case No. 1758. The facts of the case may be briefly noted.

2. The Government of Mizoram in the Public Health Engineering Department (respondent No. 1) had issued notice inviting tender (NIT) being Tender Notice No. CE/PHE/1 of 1997-98 for the work of execution of Greater Aizawl Water Supply Scheme Phase-II with treatment plant of 36.5 MLD capacity on turnkey basis.

3. Appellant submitted his bid offering 3 (three) alternative schemes as per provision of NIT. On consideration of all the bids, the appellant was adjudged as the lowest bidder and on 2.11.1999, respondent No. 1 issued letter of intent to the appellant for execution of single stage pumping concept i.e. the alternative scheme No. II on turn-key basis. The offer having been accepted, an agreement was signed between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 on 23.11.1999, clause 16 of which provides for arbitration for resolution of any dispute or difference between the parties arising out of or relating to the contract.

4. Clause 4.39 of the General Conditions of Contract provided that no work which radically changed the original nature of the contract should be ordered by the Engineer and in the event any such deviation was ordered, the contractor should carry it out and any disagreement as to the nature of the work and the rate to be paid for such work should be resolved in accordance with Article 4.69.

5. Clause 3 (vii) of the Commercial Terms and Conditions of Contract provided that it was the obligation of the contractor to carry out any extra work which the Government may instruct the contractor to do in writing.

6. Respondent No. 1 had made radical changes in the scope of the work and had asked the appellant to execute the work as per the modified scheme which was infect the same as the alternative offer given by the appellant at the time of bidding. Appellant executed the work as per modified scheme. Despite such radical changes, the contract continued.

7. Appellant had raised bills for the work done amounting to Rs. 1,38,45,70,282.22. All the invoices were under the agreement dated 23.11.1999. Respondent No. 1 had released payment of Rs. 65,52,45,914/- to the appellant. According to the appellant, respondent No. 1 has admitted that a further amount of Rs. 50,25,00,000/- is payable to the appellant as balance outstanding amount though the appellant claims a higher amount of Rs. 72,85,95,094.41 as due and outstanding.

8. Respondent No. 1 had extended the time for completion of the contract initially upto 27.1.2006 and thereafter upto 28.2.2009. Such extension of time became necessary as the authority decided to change the scheme from single stage pumping to two stage pumping. In view of such change, appellant sought for extension of time upto 28.2.2011. But the respondent No. 1 terminated the contract agreement dated 23.11.1999 by letter dated 18.11.2009.

9. Aggrieved by the termination of contract, appellant filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 94/2010. The writ petition was resisted by the State by filing counter affidavit wherein the maintainability of the writ petition was questioned on the ground that there was an arbitration clause, viz., clause 16 in the contract agreement to settle the dispute between the parties in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration, 1998.

10. In the meanwhile, the appellant moved the Indian Council of Arbitration (respondent No. 2) on 24.5.2010 for resolution of the dispute by way of arbitration. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 6.9.2010 gave notice of arb