ORDER :- This order shall decide all the aforesaid applications filed by the applicants under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1996' for short). For the convenience facts are taken from M.C.C. No. 2620/2005 (D. D. Sharma v. M. P. Rural Roads Development Authority).

2. The Government of India launched a scheme for construction and upgradation of rural roads as Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna and to implement the aforesaid scheme in the State of M.P., funds were provided to the State of M.P. The State constituted an independent authority for execution of work of rural roads in the name of M.P. Rural Roads Development Authority. The authority has been registered as a society under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam of 1973' for short). The non-applicant society invited proposals to provide contractual services for one or more consultancy packages for supervision of civil works under the supervision consultancy packages. As per the terms of packages the consultant was required to administer services as Engineer ensuring that the contractual clauses related to quality and quantity are respected and the works are implemented with the provisions and specifications within the time schedule. The applicant submitted proposals for one among the packages for supervision of civil work under the supervision consultancy packages and the proposal of applicant was accepted. That the work under the contract could not be completed in time, though the consultancy period was extended by non-applicant. Ultimately the contract was terminated by non-applicant. The applicant claimed his dues upon termination and also claimed release of security deposits, but this prayer was not accepted by the non-applicant. Thereafter the applicant served a notice claiming Rs. 68.15 lacs from the non-applicants and by invoking Clause 8.2 of special conditions of contract, submitted panel for approval of the authority to be appointed as an arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. Clause 8.2 of special conditions is an arbitration clause providing constitution of an arbitral Tribunal in case of dispute. That the non-applicant on receipt of registered letter dated 22-8-2005 Document No. 1 resisted reference to arbitrator and contended that the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Madyastam Adikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam of 1983' for short) has jurisdiction in the matter. Then the applicant filed present application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 for constitution of arbitral tribunal.

3. The non-applicant on notice opposed the application by filing a written reply, and raised following objections :-

(i) That the contract agreement between the applicant and non-applicant falls under the definition of 'Works Contract' as defined under Section 2 (1) of the Adhiniyam and as such the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Adhiniyam of 1983 has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. As per Section 7 of the Adhiniyam of 1983, this being a special enactment providing for statutory arbitration to decide dispute arising out of works contract with the State Government or its undertaking and will prevail over the Act, in the State of M.P.

(ii) That the M.P. Rural Road Development Authority is a registered society under the Adhiniyam of 1973. It is fully owned and controlled by the State Government. This Society was constituted and registered in pursuance of the State Government to create a body which will plan and implement the development of rural roads in the entire State of M.P.

(iii) That funds for carrying out work of the non-applicant is also provided by the State Government and in fact it is a grant from the Central Government and State Government in this regard. The State Government fully empowered to monitor the work of the non-applicant and also empowered to issue necessary i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document