JUDGMENT :

P.V. ASHA, J.

1. The issue arising in this case is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition to interpret the terms of agreement between the petitioner and respondent in respect of resorting to Arbitration to resolve the dispute between the parties and to interfere with the appointment of sole Arbitrator. Admittedly, there are two provisions in the agreement relating to Arbitration - one in Article 11 of the agreement and another one in Clause 6.24 of the General Conditions of Contract in the general conditions of contract (Ext.P2), which is part of the agreement. According to the petitioner, as per Article 11 of Ext.P1, appointment of Arbitrator is to be done by Indian Council of Arbitration on request by the parties; whereas respondent has appointed sole Arbitrator invoking Clause 6.24 of the general conditions of contract, according to which, MD can appoint sole Arbitrator. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is ambiguity in Clause 6.24 in so far as it is not made clear which MD would appoint when Managing Directors (I) MD of petitioner (2) MD of respondent and (3) MD of M/s MECCON Ltd. the consultancy of the respondent. Secondly both are conflicting provisions. Respondent appointed Sole Arbitrator. According to petitioner, the question raised by petitioner is not one which can be determined by the Arbitrator. It is also pointed out that though the petitioner had raised this claim in the earlier Arbitration proceedings which resulted in Ext.P3 award, the contention was rejected in paragraph 36 of the award on the ground that it was not raised at the initial stage. Therefore, when the respondent again invoked the Arbitration clause and appointed the very same Arbitrator, the petitioner has approached this Court as soon as notice was received from Arbitrator. It is stated that petitioner had raised this issue before the respondent when they received Ext.P5 notice dated 04.07.2020, in Ext.P6 reply dated 10.07.2020. Petitioner has another contention that the dispute raised in the present proceedings is already considered in the earlier proceedings covered by Ext.P3 Award.

2. The contention of the respondent is that a writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner seeks interpretation of the terms of a purely commercial contract entered into between the parties; there is no public element involved in a commercial contract; the fact that the respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking would not make the writ petition maintainable in the absence of a statutory contract between the parties; interpretation of terms of the contract entered between the parties is not permissible; any intervention by this court would defeat the very purpose and the object behind the enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act; a writ petition is not liable to be entertained merely for the absence of a remedy for the petitioner. Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self contained Code where the petitioner can raise his contentions. Question of res-judicata cannot also be adjudicated by this Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are the following: The petitioner is a Water Treatment Company. The respondent through its consultancy M/s MECCON Ltd. another Public Limited Company, invited tenders for implementing ‘effluent treatment plant’ in its plant. Being the lowest bidder, the petitioner was awarded the work. Ext.P1 agreement dated 25.04.2006 was entered into between M/s MECON Ltd. on behalf of the respondent and the petitioner for setting up 6 MLD Neutralisation Plants with water recovery module at the plant of the respondent. In the year 2017, disputes arose between the parties in respect of damage caused to the Silo in the nuetralisation plant installed by the petitioner. While the respondent alleged improper installation by the petitioner, petitioner alleged improper operation of the plant by the respondent. Invoking Arbitration clause in Clause