The Deputy Commissioner is the principal court of civil jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and has jurisdiction to entertain and decide applications under Section 34 of the Act.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. In this batch of writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the jurisdictional authority of the Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare District, Yupia in the State of Arunachal Pradesh to entertain the applications under Section 34of the Arbitration and Conciliations Act, 1996 filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside the award passed by the arbitrator in the matter of the related dispute that arose between the parties, have been challenged.

2. The State of Arunachal Pradesh having invited tender on 26.9.1992 for execution of 5 (five) Micro Hydel Schemes For installation in the East Siang district (02 Nos), West Siang district (01 No) and Tawang district (02 Nos), the Petitioners submitted their tenders and the contracts were awarded to them. The aforesaid Micro Hydel Projects were, sought to be implemented Keeping in view the acute power shortage in the State and to meet the demand and develop the power sector of the State. The tenders of the petitioners having been accepted by the department a letter of acceptance dated 17.3.1993 was issued and in terms of the said letter, the Petitioner was a1lotte the contract in question for commissioning of the said projects on turnkey basis for a fixed lump sum amount. On 18.3.1993, formal deed of contract was executed between the parties. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the works, in question, could not be completed within the time framed due to fundamental breach of terms of the contract attributing to Respondent No. 2. On the other hand, the Respondents-State contends that although the contract was to be executed within the stipulated period of 18 months, the Petitioners failed to carry out their ob ligation and out of the total contract value for the projects amounting to Rs. 105.31 crores (for 06 projects), the Petitioners were paid an amount of Rs. 65.39 crores, which is 62.09% of the total contractual value without any proportionate return in terms of work, thereby jeopardizing the public interest. The Respondents contend that in spite of the contract having been awarded at, exorbitantly high rate, which is 402% above the Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Rates, 1992 for Civil Works, while the present ongoing rate is only 60% above 1992 rates, and accordingly the price quoted by the Petitioners for civil works was 342% higher than the on going rate and the same is now a subject matter of enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation since 07.12.2000.

3. Meanwhile a dispute having been raised by the Petitioners, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court vide order dated 16.3.2001 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 25/2001, as consented by the parties, appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Monisena Singh, a Retired Judge of the Gauhati High Court as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute so raised. Being apprehensive of serious biasness on the part of the learned arbitrator due to certain omissions/commissions in the pending arbitration cases/proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the Respondent No. 2 initiated a proceeding for removal of the arbitrator before the Court of the learned. Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District under Section 14 of the Act alleging serious biasness and alleging that the arbitrator has become unable to perform his function and hence, the mandate of the arbitrator stood terminated and the said petition was numbered as Arbitration Petition No. 08 of 2003. The said proceedings, wherein the learned Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare, Yupia stayed the arbitrator proceedings vide order dated 13.11.2003, were challenged by filing the writ petitions No. 9948-9953 of 2003 and 609 of 2004 before the High Court and High Court disposed the said writ petitions, vide judgment and order dated 26.05.2004 inter alia holding that the proceeding before the learned Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable in law without raising the issue first before the learned arbitrator Under Section 12 and13of the Act and the