Judicial intervention under Article 227 is limited; only excess of jurisdiction or clear legal contraventions warrant review, as arbitration matters should primarily be resolved within designated arbitration mechanisms.

JUDGMENT :

Soumitra Saikia, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Union of India as the writ petitioners. By the instant writ proceedings, the Union of India as the writ petitioners is put into challenge the orders dated 11.11.2023 passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Proceeding No. AH-02/2022 and the arbitration proceeding No. AH-03/2022.

2. The respondent was allotted two contracts relating to Earthwork Filling to Form Embankment/Sub-Bank and construction of Minor Bridges, Retaining Wall, Pucca Approach Road, Alignment and other Ancillary Works in connection with Construction of the New BG Railway line from Bairabi to Sairang (Miroram) under contract Agreement bearing No. CON/B-S/1917 dated 02.03.2015 and Contract Agreement No. CON/B-S/2079 dated 24.11.2015. The said works were terminated by the writ petitioners/Railways leading to the disputes arising between the petitioners/Railways and the respondent. The respondent issued a notice for arbitration as per clause 64 (1)(i) of the Arbitration Clause. The said notice was replied to by the Railway authorities rejecting the demand for arbitration on the ground that Clause 47 of the Contract Agreement bars claims for arbitration beyond 20% of the SCA. Similar reply was issued by the Railways in respect of both the contracts. Thereafter, the respondent submitted a second notice demanding arbitration purportedly under arbitration Clause 48 & 49 of the Agreement treating the same to be additional special conditions or contract. The second notice however was issued only in respect of one contract work namely, CON/B-S/1917 dated 02.03.2015. Since the Railways declined to refer the matter to the arbitration, the respondent approached this Court by filing Arbitration Petition No. 20/2021; Arbitration Petition No. 22/2021 and Arbitration Petition No. 28/2021 in respect of each of the contract. The petitions were filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and accordingly the matter was urged before the Court seeking appointment of an arbitrator in respect both the arbitrations relating to both the contract works. While opposing the maintainability of the petitions filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the respondent, it was urged by the Railways before the Co-ordinate Bench, the arbitration proceedings sought for is not maintainable in view of the specific clause No. 47 of the agreement which bars arbitration. It was submitted that as per Clause 47 of the agreement, settlement of claims of dispute between the parties by ways of arbitration is permissible only where the value is less than or equal to 20% of the value of the contract and when the claims of dispute are of value more than 20% of the value of the contract, provisions of Clause 63 & 64 and other relevant clauses of the general conditions of the contract will not be applicable and arbitration will not be a remedy for settlement of such disputes. It was submitted that since the dispute itself is not open to arbitration in terms of the specific provisions contained in the agreement, there was no question for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, it was submitted by the Railways before the Co-ordinate Bench that the petitions filed by the respondent under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not maintainable and the same should therefore be dismissed.

3. The Co-ordinate Bench by the order dated 18.11.2022 disposed of these three applications. The Co-ordina