A.H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Considering the urgency and nature of controversy involved in this case and also on consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this court purposes to dispose of this writ application at the stage of motion hearing itself.

3. The correctness and legality of the order dated 8.6.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Misc. Case No. 313/ 04 arising out of Misc. (Arb) Case no. 288/04 has been assailed in this writ application preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. At the very outset, a question has been raised as regards the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that against the order impugned appeal lies before this court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") and the same being the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the present petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Undoubtedly, against