Sunil Ambwani & Prakash Gupta, J.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The delay, in filing this special appeal, has been sufficiently explained and is accordingly condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed.

3. By the special appeal the State of Rajasthan has challenged the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 03.04.2014, by which he has treated Clause 23 of the agreement/contract entered into between the parties as an arbitration clause, and while referring the matter to the Standing Committee to adjudicate the matter as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996'), directed that in case the Administrative Secretary or the Finance Secretary, who were instrumental and were associated in passing the orders for recovery of the amount, which was paid as price escalation for the delayed period to the respondents, are members of Standing Committee, the matter would be referred to sole arbitrator, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg (Retired), Rajasthan High Court, and that the petitioners, in the meanwhile, would be at liberty to take resort to Section 9 of the Act of 1996, or if the dispute is referred to the arbitration, then to make application under Section 17 of the Act of 1996 for interim protection.

4. It is submitted by AAG that learned Single Judge has erred in law in accepting Clause 23 of the agreement/contract as an arbitration clause, and further in directing that if the Standing Committee includes the Administrative Secretary or the Finance Secretary who were instrumental or associated with the decision making process, the matter will be referred to the sole arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg (Retired), Rajasthan High Court.

5. The facts, given rise to the special appeal, are that under an agreement dated 01.10.2005, M/s. SPML Infra Limited, the respondent, carried out the work of laying down the pipelines in Chambal Sawai Madhopur Nadauti Water Supply Project; it submitted claims of Rs. 99.72 crores over and above PV clause, and to claim back the recovery of liquidated amount of Rs. 4.17 crores from the respondent. Clause 23 of the agreement/contract provided for Standing Committee for Settlement of Disputes, as follows:

"Clause 23 - Standing Committee for Settlement of Disputes - If any question, difference or objection, whatsoever shall arise in anyway, in connection with or arising out of this instrument, or the meaning or operation of any part thereof, or the rights, duties or liabilities of either party then, save insofar, as the decision of any such matter, as hereinbefore provided for, and been so decided, every such matter constituting a total claim of Rs. 50,000 or above, whether its decision has been otherwise provide for and whether it has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated, and as regard; the rights or obligations of the parties, as the result of such terminator shall be referred for decision to the empowered Standing Committee, which would consist of the following:

(i) Administrative Secretary concerned.

(ii) Finance Secretary or his nominee, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary.

(iii) Law Secretary or his nominee, not below the rank of Joint Legal Remembrancer.

(iv) Chief Engineer-cum-Addl. Secretary of the concerned department.

(v) Chief Engineer concerned (Member-Secretary).

The Engineer-in-charge, on receipt of application along with non-refundable prescribed fee (the fee would be 2% of the amount in dispute, not exceeding Rs. One lakh) from the contractor, shall refer the disputes to the committee; within a period of one month from the date of receipt of application.

Procedure and application for referring cases for settlement by the Standing Committee shall be, as given in Form RPWA 90."

6. The writ petitio