1. A learned Single Judge while considering the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Central Act”) found divergent views between the two Single Bench orders of this Court i.e. order dated 08.02.2016 passed by Indore Bench of this Court in A.C. No. 9/2013, Rajesh Agrawal vs. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and order dated 21.04.2015 passed by a learned Single Bench of Principal Seat of this Court in A.C. No. 12/2014, M/s Landlord Infrastructure vs. Engineer in Chief, PWD and Others. Therefore, the following questions were referred for the opinion of the Larger Bench:

(1) Whether the dispute relating to termination of a contract without claiming any consequential relief is maintainable before the Arbitral Tribunal under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983?

(2) Whether, under the guise of challenge to an action of termination of contract, the remedy under the MP Act can be said to be not available, when the real challenge is to the Revenue Recovery Certificate issued by the State for recovery of the loss/damages?

(3) Any other question that may arise for adjudication or decision in the dispute involved in the present petition and which the Larger Bench thinks appropriate to decide?

2. In view of the above, when the matter was placed before this Bench, another argument was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 15.03.2018 that in case the remedy under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short “the State Act”) is not available, then the aggrieved person would have a remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Central Act”) if there is an arbitration clause in a works contract. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent-State argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Another vs. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495 (for short referred to as “L.G. Chaudhary-I”) and also the order of the Supreme Court dated 08.03.2018 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 974/2012, Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Another vs. M/s L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors (for short referred to as “L.G. Chaudhary-II”) and Civil Appeal No. 2615/2018, State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Gammon India Ltd., the State law will prevail in terms of Section 2(4) of the Central Act. Thus, if the dispute in relation to works contract is not arbitrable under the State Act, the parties need to seek their remedy from the Civil Court and not under the Central Act.

3. In view of the arguments raised, this Court framed another question for the opinion, which would now be Question No. (2A). The same is reproduced as under:-

“(2A) If the dispute is not arbitrable by the Arbitral Tribunal under the State Act, the remedy of the aggrieved person is before the Civil Court or under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?”

4. The above said question arises out of the fact that the petitioner herein sought appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11 of the Central Act arising out of a dispute pursuant to the work order given to the petitioner for the construction of road from Bhogiteda to Bhadus Rondha Jod road on 09.07.2012. The contract value was Rs. 1,08,21,000/- and the rate of tender being 2.80% below the SOR (Schedule of Rates).

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that a show cause notice was served on it to terminate the contract agreement but even before delivery of the notice, the contract was terminated on 29.01.2014. The petitioner has raised a dispute before the Superintending Engineer, who has affirmed the order of termination of contract. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer, who has dismissed the appeal on 14.06.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have served a notice on 24.06.2016 for appointment of an Arbitrator under the Central Act. The assertion of the petitio